Originally posted by whatsonpop: It's starting before prime time? That's weird. Would those numbers factor into the ratings? How does that work?
quote:
Originally posted by tvratingsjunkie: I wonder on the topic of Idol Gives Back next Wednesday if starting at 7:30 instead of 8 will help it get bigger ratings numbers than last year? I mean 2 1/2 hours of AI next Wednesday seems like alot. Even for a fan of the show
And more improtantly, when are they going to show Jeopardy?
(Is Jeopardy even on any FOX affiliates?)
Excuse me, but you can't preempt King of the Hill reruns. That's ridiculous.
Or Everybody Loves Raymond encores because you know, it already airs 9 times a day on TBS.
Originally posted by the128boy: I keep saying, CBS had better get smart and sacrifice a couple or three of these weaker shows, and get some variety in their schedule or they will crumble in a couple seasons.
The catch 22 is, none of their shows are bad enough to replace yet (give it a season or 2 at the most) and then EVERYTHING will have gone sour (at the same time... yikes!).
They'd better have a lot of good new shows come fall 2009 or else.
They have had more success in new Comedies than new Dramas.
Only Shark and Moonlight have done decent in the Drama Department, but Old Christine, Rules..., BBT and HIMYM have done well for them the past 3 seasons.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: In the eye's defense, they have tried diversity this year, but the lineup was wrong in many ways and the audience for the procedurals still doesn't like much else besides procedurals. I do agree the lineup looks ancient though and as much as it may not translate into viewers, buzz is something they completely lack on most nights (especially Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sundays). Adding at least another hour of comedies is the right direction. They can't seem to launch the hit serialized show so focus on other ways of finding the young audience: laughs, which are far and few between in today's TV world. As much as I dislike the show and as much as it will never make any real form of money for them, Moonlight will be kept for this reason as well, even if it means dragging down Fridays even more. I honestly think Cold Case only has a season or two left max and CSI:NY will probably not see season 10, unless an NBC-like collapse happens (and it could). Of course, just a few more chimp moves and ABC could collapse too.
I mostly agree. CBS has been trying different shows, they just haven't been successful (or left on long enough to be successful). Smith, 3 Lbs, Jericho, Moonlight, Cane, and Viva Laughlin have all been departures from the standard. With the possible exception of Moonlight, they have all failed. I think they need to keep trying and eventually something will stick.
BTW, you do realize that season 10 for CSI: NY would mean another 6 seasons...and 9 seasons is still pretty good by most standards (how many current shows not named Law & Order have been on the air more than 9 seasons)? Did you perhaps mean season 6 or 7? Or did you mean to refer to CSI, which is on season 8 now?
Originally posted by mushu_jj: In the eye's defense, they have tried diversity this year, but the lineup was wrong in many ways and the audience for the procedurals still doesn't like much else besides procedurals. I do agree the lineup looks ancient though and as much as it may not translate into viewers, buzz is something they completely lack on most nights (especially Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sundays). Adding at least another hour of comedies is the right direction. They can't seem to launch the hit serialized show so focus on other ways of finding the young audience: laughs, which are far and few between in today's TV world. As much as I dislike the show and as much as it will never make any real form of money for them, Moonlight will be kept for this reason as well, even if it means dragging down Fridays even more. I honestly think Cold Case only has a season or two left max and CSI:NY will probably not see season 10, unless an NBC-like collapse happens (and it could). Of course, just a few more chimp moves and ABC could collapse too.
I mostly agree. CBS has been trying different shows, they just haven't been successful (or left on long enough to be successful). Smith, 3 Lbs, Jericho, Moonlight, Cane, and Viva Laughlin have all been departures from the standard. With the possible exception of Moonlight, they have all failed. I think they need to keep trying and eventually something will stick.
BTW, you do realize that season 10 for CSI: NY would mean another 6 seasons...and 9 seasons is still pretty good by most standards (how many current shows not named Law & Order have been on the air more than 9 seasons)? Did you perhaps mean season 6 or 7? Or did you mean to refer to CSI, which is on season 8 now?
I meant CSI:NY. CSI: Original flavor will last about 15 I'm guessing. The key will be surviving cast changes. I'm not sure its as durable as Law and Order. As for the CBS "outcasts", Smith was on about twice (but clearly was rejected),Jericho was killed by mismanagement, Cane was killed by sucking, and Viva Laughlin was so far out right field for CBS that it never had a shot. 3 lbs. was also a failure on the creative end. Moonlight is a cult hit that still manages to look mediocre on Fridays. I see nothing here that the serialized audiences would really want to tune into. Of course, 3 lbs. really wasn't serialized from what I got. I see no Greys Anatomy potential in any of these. No Desperate Housewives. No Heroes. No Lost. Not even a Brothers and Sisters or Private Practice level program. If the other nets start focusing on more originals (which NBC is and ABC likely will here soon), then I'm guessing CBS's repeats will start getting less and less valuable to them.
Another problem with CBS is their pilot slate is terrible. It's by far the worst of the networks (yes, worse than the CW). The Mentalist is the only one that has promise and even with that, it's only hope is drumming up the horror element of the synopsis and being a good match with the Ghost Whisperer on Fridays.
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Sadly, Men in Trees is a goner. A victim of bad scheduling.
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Was Supernanny a repeat again? Because if not, it took a bit of a hit. I really can't see Men in Trees coming back next year.
Ratings for CM and CSI: NY aren't impressive, but CSI: NY is just a little under it's season average and right around where it was last year at this time. CM took a bigger hit compared to it's season ratings, but up against Idol, that's not a surprise.
It will be interesting to see what happens when both CSI: NY and L&O are showing originals.
Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Sadly, Men in Trees is a goner. A victim of bad scheduling.
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Was Supernanny a repeat again? Because if not, it took a bit of a hit. I really can't see Men in Trees coming back next year.
Ratings for CM and CSI: NY aren't impressive, but CSI: NY is just a little under it's season average and right around where it was last year at this time. CM took a bigger hit compared to it's season ratings, but up against Idol, that's not a surprise.
It will be interesting to see what happens when both CSI: NY and L&O are showing originals.
Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
Boy, no kidding. I don't want to sound after-the-fact, but I knew this show was not gonna take off this season. You could just tell.
I don't think it was so much a matter of being a victim of bad scheduling, but rather being a victim of being a One-Too-Many-Sappy-Soaps-On-ABC show. (too harsh?)
Not being a fan of the show, even I would have to admit that perhaps it was a combination of poor scheduling and promotion. The show always seemed to be on hiatus since it's inception. The numbers for Fridays the first year were OK from what I recall and then it disappeared for awhile and then suddenly was aired for a few weeks and then disappeared and each time came back with little fan fare and little promotion.
I think that this show should have been given a shot last summer to see if it could catch an audience. (Say early August to beat the glut of new offerings).
But whatever, it's dead now.
quote:
Originally posted by AL: Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
Originally posted by Marc Berman: hiatus-bound Men in Trees (Viewers: #3, 5.50 million; A18-49: #3, 1.5/ 4).
-- "Better Off Ted," Wednesdays at some time or another at some point or another in the near future. Because we can't all live in mansions and not ever work like the people on "Modern Family."
Originally posted by Walter: Whats Happing to DOND is exactly what happend to Who wants to be a Millionair.
And we all know how that turned out
DOND isn't sucking as bad as what a lot of people make it seem (and also, I don't think being on twice a week is too much), but yeah, it's definately weakening.
The thing is that i predict it's gone after 2 more years, because of fairly quick ratings erosion and the fact that it's going into syndication.
I'm sorry but this post really angers me. Men in trees was given the so called prime slot after Grey's but it was given it when Grey's was in repeats -- it was supposed to return Post Greys== but then October road did well and it never returned. From February to September I believe, it was not heard from again and then expected to perform great back on Fridays where it didn't do well at all. This is the kind of show, given it's serialized nature that needs a stable solid lead in for it to succeed. It will show it on one time slot then yank it for a few weeks. It could have used the love that brothers and sisters gets. But time and time again, when there is a good time slot, abc chooses to use something else. So please don't tell me that it is not a victim of bad scheduling and from the sounds of it, since you are obviously not a fan, why does it really matter? It's probably gonna get cancelled anyways. And the reason it matters to us fans, is that it is a good show, otherwise it wouldn't matter to any of us.
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Sadly, Men in Trees is a goner. A victim of bad scheduling.
quote:
Originally posted by Holly: Was Supernanny a repeat again? Because if not, it took a bit of a hit. I really can't see Men in Trees coming back next year.
Ratings for CM and CSI: NY aren't impressive, but CSI: NY is just a little under it's season average and right around where it was last year at this time. CM took a bigger hit compared to it's season ratings, but up against Idol, that's not a surprise.
It will be interesting to see what happens when both CSI: NY and L&O are showing originals.
Please explain Marc why this show was "a victim of bad schedling". This show was given more of a chance than most horribly rated shows get. It started last years on Friday nights, got weak ratings. ABC could or should have canceled it then. But next they give it the premium post Grey's slot on Thursdays. Once again the ratings suck. At which point again ABC could have just thrown in the towel and cancled it. But they decided to bring it back for the new season. It goes back to Fridays, and once again, the ratings suck. Again, ABC could have just canceled it again after 4 tries. But again they decided to give it another shot, in a better time slot on Wednesdays at 10. And once again the ratings suck. This show was arguably given more chances to succeed then almost any show in the history of TV. Yet people complain that it was a victim of bad scheduling.
Today's game is predicting "CSI" ratings. How well will the first new episode since the strike perform?
