quote:

C'mon...they really didn't want to bring it back and admit they had made a mistake so they bowed into the NUTS campaign and only brought it back to save face and made a point of saying that for there to be more JERICHO the ratings would have to be there...and even a chimp knows a struggling show like JERICHO is never going to pull decent ratings at 10PM Sunday.

Wow. Your logic is blinding. They spent many millions of dollars bringing back a show that had already proven itself a failure after being given a very effective promotion and kick-off by them, and then bled viewers week after week, when it became obvious there wasn't enough of a story there, and that the characters were one dimensional and trite.

So why would you say CBS is willing to waste millions of dollars to thumb their noses at some losers sending them nuts?

They brought it back because they didn't want to admit they'd been stupid to greenlight it in the first place. Because they didn't want to admit they'd made a total hash out of their attempt to create a domestic smalltown family version of Lost. Because they let a handful of morons waving Mr. Peanut jars to con them into thinking there was some groundswell of support out there for this half-witted exercise in Heartland paranoia. And maybe because of some contractual or corporate political issues we aren't privy to.

No chimp would be dumb enough to care about Jericho. But it doesn't take a genius to know it would have failed in any timeslot, with any lead-in.

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
no. the point is very simple If you put one high rated show on at 9pm then another at 10p, you have a better scenario than one high rated show at 9p an crap at 10p.What part of that is hard to understand? Thursday night is the battleground of network tv. ABC has been unable to fid ANY show that is sucessful after Greys and ANY show that is sucessful after Lost. Therefore putting them on back-to-back with the stronger show at 9pm is most logical Got it?

quote:

Originally posted by KSO:

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
I think the difference is two high rated shows versus one...

One?

Survivor will beat UG.
CSI will beat Greys in viewers.
WAT has more viewers than Lost.

Lost @ 10pm instead of 9 could also lose viewers instead of gaining. What will they gain when the lead in is close to equal in ratings?

Putting Lost after Grey's does nothing to help Lost only hurt. If Grey's had 20+ million viewers it would help, but 17 million is just going to have Lost end up lower than they are now.

I think KSO thought you were comparing ABC (two hit shows) to CBS (1 hit show) rather than ABC post-strike spring to ABC fall.

Although I'd be willing to stay up to 2AM to watch a new episode of Lost, I'm afraid that some will find 10pm to be too late. Not sure this is a good move. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. We'll have to see how it pans out.

If people are upset with the later time, they can move to Chicago where it will be on at 9pm again.

quote:

Originally posted by SciFi Lover:
Although I'd be willing to stay up to 2AM to watch a new episode of Lost, I'm afraid that some will find 10pm to be too late. Not sure this is a good move. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. We'll have to see how it pans out.

Unless Lost experiences a major creative revival, it's never going to regain anything close to its former popularity. And frankly, it doesn't need to regain its former popularity. It's in a process of slowly winding down to a conclusion (an overly delayed conclusion, you ask me).

Lost isn't an important part of ABC's future anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:
The person who typed this completely misunderstood the point of what the previous person had typed.

Hi, that would be me. I understood the point of the post, and agreed (as you do) that they are onto something. Then I offered up my own opinion on a small portion of the previous poster's argument. Just because you may not agree with what I have to say doesn't mean that I misunderstood the previous post.

I stand by my belief that The CW has agitated and taken advantage of the few loyal viewers that they've managed to get. No matter how you spin it, that's not good business.

quote:

Originally posted by SciFi Lover:
Although I'd be willing to stay up to 2AM to watch a new episode of Lost, I'm afraid that some will find 10pm to be too late. Not sure this is a good move. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. We'll have to see how it pans out.

Part of me hopes LOST will end up at 8pm rather than 10pm. This would be a good time to UB to another night and time, basically testing a pre-fall schedule.

I think that would be a bad move. UB still performs better than anything abc has put in that slot before. Lost will do well no matter where it is on the schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by Zedman2:

quote:

Originally posted by SciFi Lover:
Although I'd be willing to stay up to 2AM to watch a new episode of Lost, I'm afraid that some will find 10pm to be too late. Not sure this is a good move. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. We'll have to see how it pans out.

Part of me hopes LOST will end up at 8pm rather than 10pm. This would be a good time to UB to another night and time, basically testing a pre-fall schedule.

quote:

Hi, that would be me. I understood the point of the post, and agreed (as you do) that they are onto something.

What I understood that person to be saying was that most CW shows don't have the kind of audience that leads to synergy with other shows. They are just small isolated units, getting smaller all the time, and openly rooting for CW's other shows to do worse than the one they like. And this person was saying this type of audience hurts CW as a network, and they'd be better off with an audience that was perhaps a tad less obsessive and full of itself.

quote:

Then I offered up my own opinion on a small portion of the previous poster's argument. Just because you may not agree with what I have to say doesn't mean that I misunderstood the previous post.

Well, maybe you misunderstood what I meant when I said you misunderstood. Did you ever think of that? Hmmm?

quote:

I stand by my belief that The CW has agitated and taken advantage of the few loyal viewers that they've managed to get.

So noted, but I stand by the simple and undeniable fact that those fans agitated themselves just fine without any help (I mean, Veronica Mars fans chartered a PLANE), and took advantage of CW's credulity. With a lot of help from Dawn Ostroff's personal vanity and self-interest, because she just doesn't want to admit she sucks at development.

quote:

No matter how you spin it, that's not good business.

And CW is the farthest thing imaginable from a good business, because it does precisely what you advise it to do. And do you appreciate it? You don't even acknowledge it.

But don't mind me. CW has the viewers it deserves, and its viewers have the network they deserve. A match made in hell.

agreed...how about UB post Grey's or is it too much of a family show to air at 10?

quote:

Originally posted by Zedman2:

quote:

Originally posted by SciFi Lover:
Although I'd be willing to stay up to 2AM to watch a new episode of Lost, I'm afraid that some will find 10pm to be too late. Not sure this is a good move. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. We'll have to see how it pans out.

Part of me hopes LOST will end up at 8pm rather than 10pm. This would be a good time to UB to another night and time, basically testing a pre-fall schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:
What I understood that person to be saying was that most CW shows don't have the kind of audience that leads to synergy with other shows.

As did I, congrats, we both get A's in reading comprehension.

quote:

So noted, but I stand by the simple and undeniable fact that those fans agitated themselves just fine without any help (I mean, Veronica Mars fans chartered a PLANE), and took advantage of CW's credulity. With a lot of help from Dawn Ostroff's personal vanity and self-interest, because she just doesn't want to admit she sucks at development.

Yes, but as passionate as those VM fans were, there were about 15 of them. Shows like Supernatural and OTH have proven that they have the ability to bring in a good amount of viewers (for a net of that stature), but these shows are continually pushed around by the network: given the worst time slot, given no lead-in, given a midseason airing date, moved around and delayed in the middle of a season, etc.

Meanwhile, the shows that are given all the press, promotion, and good time slots continue to fail, because like you said, they're not very good at development.

quote:

And the more it caters to tiny online cults, the less of a business CW will be. Until it's no business at all.

I agree to an extent, and I think (like the original poster said) that it has something to do with the lack of themed programming overall. However, it does have soaps, reality, and sci-fi like most of the other nets. I personally think it's how they (mis)handle these individual shows, and how they give favor to the LEAST promising ones that is doing them continued harm.

It's easy to say... all these shows have little fanbases that are online fanatics. But when that's all you've got, shouldn't you focus on the ones that are continuing to deliver instead of the ones that are continuing to fail? That's how you agitate viewers. The only other option is to scrap the whole thing (and that's certainly a very real possibility).

quote:

Originally posted by wenart25:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TVGroupie:

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
Too many niche viewers who don't look beyond the particular show they obsess over. The CW has a tricky situation. They keep programming scripted shows that "should" appeal to their viewers, but the viewers are so afraid if another show becomes popular that their show will be cancelled.

You might be onto something here... I think that part of the reason the viewers are often at odds with each other is based on how the execs at The CW treat individual shows. Some shows (ie - Veronica Mars, Gossip Girl) are given every opportunity in the world to succeed and generally don't, while others are pushed all around the schedule and manage to hang onto their loyal following (OTH, Supernatural, etc).

It's that small loyal following that The CW should be nurturing and not taking advantage of.

You're partially right but i don't realistically think there are many who don't watch a show beacause the other one will be canceled. For example i've always been an OTH watcher and i knew that if GG does well it might be the end for OTH. Nonetheless i watched GG at least for the first 3-4 episodes. I'm criticizing GG now not beacuase i want it to fail but beacause IMO it's a very bad show

You have just now figured out that GG is a bad show? I figured that out after watching the pilot. I think GG is nothing but trash and a horrible show to get the younger teenagers, females, to watch. Bad representation for them.

Peace!!

Maybe you didn't read what i wrote: i said after 3-4 episodes

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
no. the point is very simple If you put one high rated show on at 9pm then another at 10p, you have a better scenario than one high rated show at 9p an crap at 10p.What part of that is hard to understand? Thursday night is the battleground of network tv. ABC has been unable to fid ANY show that is sucessful after Greys and ANY show that is sucessful after Lost. Therefore putting them on back-to-back with the stronger show at 9pm is most logical Got it?

quote:

Originally posted by KSO:

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
I think the difference is two high rated shows versus one...

One?

Survivor will beat UG.
CSI will beat Greys in viewers.
WAT has more viewers than Lost.

Lost @ 10pm instead of 9 could also lose viewers instead of gaining. What will they gain when the lead in is close to equal in ratings?

Putting Lost after Grey's does nothing to help Lost only hurt. If Grey's had 20+ million viewers it would help, but 17 million is just going to have Lost end up lower than they are now.

Yeah but this move will change nothing: ABC will still win the demos and will still lose in viewers. Like before the GA/Lost pairing

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by wenart25:

quote:

Originally posted by robert:

quote:

Originally posted by TVGroupie:

quote:

Originally posted by whatsonpop:
Too many niche viewers who don't look beyond the particular show they obsess over. The CW has a tricky situation. They keep programming scripted shows that "should" appeal to their viewers, but the viewers are so afraid if another show becomes popular that their show will be cancelled.

You might be onto something here... I think that part of the reason the viewers are often at odds with each other is based on how the execs at The CW treat individual shows. Some shows (ie - Veronica Mars, Gossip Girl) are given every opportunity in the world to succeed and generally don't, while others are pushed all around the schedule and manage to hang onto their loyal following (OTH, Supernatural, etc).

It's that small loyal following that The CW should be nurturing and not taking advantage of.

You're partially right but i don't realistically think there are many who don't watch a show beacause the other one will be canceled. For example i've always been an OTH watcher and i knew that if GG does well it might be the end for OTH. Nonetheless i watched GG at least for the first 3-4 episodes. I'm criticizing GG now not beacuase i want it to fail but beacause IMO it's a very bad show

You have just now figured out that GG is a bad show? I figured that out after watching the pilot. I think GG is nothing but trash and a horrible show to get the younger teenagers, females, to watch. Bad representation for them.

Peace!!

Maybe you didn't read what i wrote: i said after 3-4 episodes

Sorry Robert. My mistake.

Peace!!

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:
And CW is the farthest thing imaginable from a good business, because it does precisely what you advise it to do.

I'm advising that they treat their highest performing shows with the respect they deserve, instead of giving opportunities to the underperformers.

That CAN'T be what's hurting the net, because they're simply not doing it.

quote:

But don't mind me.

You're finally making some sense.