I know the Post Lost and Post Grey's is a weak link for ABC, but to put back to back, against CBS and their still powerful lineup (seriously, is it ever gonna weaken) is just I think stupid. Lost is probably going to lose viewers because new CSI will lead in WAT, so i think it should be on wednesday at 10. It goes against 2 shows that are opposite of Lost, L&O and CSINY. It was there before against CSINY, i think L&O was on Fridays by that time? I'm not sure, but it did well, then, why wouldn't it to well this time? Plus you could keep on trying to put something on after Grey's to see if it hits, (hint, stop with the soapy crap) If the soaps don't hit time after time, try something else, and it makes another night you are competitive, which you already are on Thursdays, but hey I'm not the person who schedules these things, so we'll see how it goes.

quote:

Originally posted by vlis:
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.

I also think LOST would be better in the 8pm slot than the 10pm slot on Thursdays. As far as UB testing it on another night, the most obvious one to me is Tuesdays @ 9pm, by moving Dancing results @ 8pm. I think either UB or WMC should be tried out after the Dancing results this Spring -- what they have today from 8pm - 10pm is absolutely horrific.

quote:

Originally posted by Drew:
I know the Post Lost and Post Grey's is a weak link for ABC, but to put back to back, against CBS and their still powerful lineup (seriously, is it ever gonna weaken) is just I think stupid. Lost is probably going to lose viewers because new CSI will lead in WAT, so i think it should be on wednesday at 10. It goes against 2 shows that are opposite of Lost, L&O and CSINY. It was there before against CSINY, i think L&O was on Fridays by that time? I'm not sure, but it did well, then, why wouldn't it to well this time? Plus you could keep on trying to put something on after Grey's to see if it hits, (hint, stop with the soapy crap) If the soaps don't hit time after time, try something else, and it makes another night you are competitive, which you already are on Thursdays, but hey I'm not the person who schedules these things, so we'll see how it goes.

They tried Wednesdays @ 10pm last season and it didn't work too well. I think Thursdays @ 8pm would be best.

quote:

Originally posted by Pisher:
Because [CBS] 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.

No chimp would be dumb enough to care about Jericho.

Wow, Pisher...good to know that we Jericho fans are dumber than chimps. While I think the show is riddled with inconsistencies (as lakers247 said, it would be much better on HBO or Showtime) I do enjoy some of the performances, and was glad to see it return.

Of course, it's a moot point, since Jericho will never find a mass audience and will be canceled after these episodes end.

quote:

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

You don't seem to have grasped the underlying implications very well, though.

quote:

Yes, but as passionate as those VM fans were, there were about 15 of them.

Online, they were about as numerous as the fans of CW's other shows. Problem is, online doesn't mean anything. Like this conversation we're having now. Meaning-free. But it kills time nicely, doesn't it?

quote:

Shows like Supernatural and OTH

Which applying your math fairly, have maybe 20-25 fans--

quote:

have proven that they have the ability to bring in a good amount of viewers (for a net of that stature)

Translation: They used to have more viewers than they do now. On an entirely different network.

quote:

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.

Right, this is what the Veronica Mars fans kept saying. And saying. And saying.

Granted that SN and OTH had more potential, they've pretty much used that potential up, and face it--there ARE no good CW timeslots. Any timeslot on CW is, by definition, a crappy timeslot. And any show on CW is, by definition--

quote:

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.

Nor are they good at managing the slightly more successful series they inherited from WB. And as a result, those shows lost popularity. Frankly, both of them suck, but I'll grant you, they had more appeal than Veronica Mars or Gossip Girls.

But face it, SN and OTH were flash in the pan shows. They aren't Glittering Jewels in the Crown. They're second-rate rhinestones that only look good next to the cheap paste CW created on its own.

You don't agree? That's fine. But most people will never agree with you. And will express their disagreement by not watching those shows.

OTH and SN are just over. They may drag on a while longer, precisely because CW is so desperate. On any real network, they've have been toast long ago.

quote:

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.

Which has to do with the questionable strategy of trying to blend two different networks into one, and putting the President of the less successful network in charge of the new network.

quote:

However, it does have soaps, reality, and sci-fi like most of the other nets.

Translation: It has the same stuff the other networks have, only not as good.

See, WB, which I can't say I mourn all that much, did occasionally give us shows we couldn't see anywhere else. And now if we want to see shows like that, we just have to shell out for cable, or wait for DVD.

quote:

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.

I think you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, when you should be looking for a lifeboat. Or hell, just go over the side. The water's fine.

quote:

It's easy to say... all these shows have little fanbases that are online fanatics.

Easy to say, because it's easy to see.

quote:

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?

Right, and since Giuliani couldn't hope to win all those states before Florida, didn't it make sense for him to ignore them completely? That worked out GREAT!

quote:

That's how you agitate viewers.

Who would be agitated anyway. Who are self-agitated. And anyway, the shows you want CW to take care of are shows that can't possibly last much longer, no matter what CW does. They are not shows with the potential to run for a long time. They're shows based around the youthful appeal of actors who refuse to stay the same age. They're shows that just keep recycling the same tired stories, over and over. They're shows that really have no reason to exist.

And neither do the new CW shows, but CW's only hope of surviving has always been to find a way to create new shows people like. If they can't do that, they're done. Because no matter what they do with SN and OTH, those shows aren't going to be around much longer. And their fanbases will have to deal with that. Or not.

quote:

The only other option is to scrap the whole thing (and that's certainly a very real possibility).

And the only possibility that interests me.

the real problem is that the cw simply cannot decide what they want to be. If they are going to chase specific demo groups, then do it effectively (VH1, Lifetime, FX) or make a real attempt at being a legitimate 5th network. Develope and produce cross-generational programming and bring the damned frog back. It's not brain surgery. Unfortunately Dawn and crew have too many "brilliant" plans for executing their new bastard-child network.

quote:

Originally posted by TVGroupie:

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 TVGroupie:
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 are perfectly representative of what is wrong for the CW. How can the network expect to biuld a successful future as long as its fanbase consists of people that think the way that you do? People that actively root for the failure of other shows just so theirs will survive. People that actively refuse to watch new shows because they think it will lead to an end for their old show. In short, people that work to destroy the network that airs the show they claim to 'love'.

CW's only chance to succeed is to find viewers that are willing to try their new shows even though they already like one of the old shows on the network. If that means that they need to shed every last one of those backward thinking viewers first, then that is one of the growing pains that the CW will have to suffer through before they can reach success.

quote:

Originally posted by Obveeus:

quote:

Originally posted by TVGroupie:
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 are perfectly representative of what is wrong for the CW. How can the network expect to biuld a successful future as long as its fanbase consists of people that think the way that you do? People that actively root for the failure of other shows just so theirs will survive. People that actively refuse to watch new shows because they think it will lead to an end for their old show. In short, people that work to destroy the network that airs the show they claim to 'love'.

CW's only chance to succeed is to find viewers that are willing to try their new shows even though they already like one of the old shows on the network. If that means that they need to shed every last one of those backward thinking viewers first, then that is one of the growing pains that the CW will have to suffer through before they can reach success.

The problem for CW is CW itself not their watchers

quote:

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

These shows are in their third season. Of course third season shows get less promotion nad press than shows that premiere (excluding extraordinary hit shows like Lost or GA maybe).

It's like that on any network.

quote:

Originally posted by pisher:

OTH and SN are just over. They may drag on a while longer, precisely because CW is so desperate. On any real network, they've have been toast long ago.

On any real network those shows would be watched by many pore viewers

quote:

CW's only chance to succeed is to find viewers that are willing to try their new shows even though they already like one of the old shows on the network. If that means that they need to shed every last one of those backward thinking viewers first, then that is one of the growing pains that the CW will have to suffer through before they can reach success.

Agreed. But in order for that to work, TPTB have to fire all the people who made CW such a failure in the first place. They need to stop playing it safe, and try shows that aren't simply rehashes of earlier shows.

See, OTH and SN are hardly sterling examples of WB at its best. Buffy and Gilmore Girls are WB at its best--and of course both shows proceeded to stink up the joint when they switched networks.

I personally doubt CW can compete with cable. Particularly now that the impending arrival of HDTV is going to push more and more people to get cable/satellite.

However, the weak economy may force some people to cut back. That's their opportunity. That's their audience. People who are addicted to edgy programming, but who are struggling to work their way back up the ladder, and would like the option of having something decent to watch without paying hundreds a year for a few hours of good TV. Doesn't have to be just teenagers (who would proceed to dump CW anyway, once they grew up).

It's a very small and difficult target audience to hit, but it's that or the scrap heap.

quote:

On any real network those shows would be watched by many pore viewers

Yeah, but the real networks want the rich viewers, not the pore ones.

quote:

Originally posted by KSO:
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?

Exactly. And it will continue to lose viewers anyway, it was facing next to no competition thanks to the strike.

Boston Legal, in my opinion, has lost the appeal it once had. Alan, Denny and Shirley are the core of the show but they seem now to be the focal point of every episode. Also, they made too many changes too fast by dropping 4 cast members and adding 5 over the summer. I really can't appreciate the newer regulars as much as Paul, Denise, Brad, et al. They're not as vibrant and have yet to show they fill the mold. I say all this while admitting BL is still my favorite show.

But given its strong performances in the higher income demos I don't think we're in cancellation territory yet. Maybe if ABC didn't fickle with the show's schedule, either, the show would retain some more of its weekly followers from before. And I don't believe that BL's absence from ABC's renewal announcement the other day is indicative of cancellation, either.

quote:

Originally posted by GuyNoir:
While I think the show is riddled with inconsistencies (as lakers247 said, it would be much better on HBO or Showtime)

What does one have to do with the other? Shows like The Wire or Dexter are better written than anything on CBS. Jericho on Sci-Fi, maybe.