Agreed. Given Fox owns everything surrounding the show (network, studio, etc.), they can continue it ten more years if they want.
But since NBC doesn't own "ER", and with its diminished ratings performance, how can they justify keeping it on the air? Didn't NBC pay Warner $13 million in licensing fees per episode at one point?
I think the only reason it hasn't already been canceled is that nobody at NBC wants to be the person who canceled ER. It's not much now, but it was one of the cornerstones of their climb back to ratings dominance. If whatever replaces it doesn't do well, whoever advocated for the cancellation will take a hit. But if nobody takes that step, with this and other shows, NBC will never dominate the ratings again.
The same thing is happening with Law & Order.
Both shows are perpetually on the bubble these days, but NBC is afraid of bursting the bubble--afraid to give up shows that are symbolic of past success. Paradoxically, they'd be much less nervous about canceling younger shows with those ratings--shows that still had their original stars, and some vague reason to go on existing, other than making a handful of rich people even richer.
Agreed. Given Fox owns everything surrounding the show (network, studio, etc.), they can continue it ten more years if they want.
But since NBC doesn't own "ER", and with its diminished ratings performance, how can they justify keeping it on the air? Didn't NBC pay Warner $13 million in licensing fees per episode at one point?
I think the only reason it hasn't already been canceled is that nobody at NBC wants to be the person who canceled ER. It's not much now, but it was one of the cornerstones of their climb back to ratings dominance. If whatever replaces it doesn't do well, whoever advocated for the cancellation will take a hit. But if nobody takes that step, with this and other shows, NBC will never dominate the ratings again.
The same thing is happening with Law & Order.
Both shows are perpetually on the bubble these days, but NBC is afraid of bursting the bubble--afraid to give up shows that are symbolic of past success. Paradoxically, they'd be much less nervous about canceling younger shows with those ratings--shows that still had their original stars, and some vague reason to go on existing, other than making a handful of rich people even richer.
Maybe NBC keeps ER and Law & Order because they are a struggling network and those are 2 of their highest rated shows? Did you ever think of that? Maybe?
Maybe NBC keeps ER and Law & Order because they are a struggling network and those are 2 of their highest rated shows? Did you ever think of that? Maybe?
Maybe we keep hearing about how neither show is going to be around much longer (from plenty of people in the know who are not Marc) because NBC is losing money every time they air, and they aren't bringing in new viewers, and hardly anyone really cares if they stay or not, away from a few obscure message boards?
Ever think of that?
By your logic, Gunsmoke should be in its 53rd season on CBS. Hey, James Arness is still alive.
I'm sure now that it has a folder, it will boost discussion at company watercoolers all over the country, especially if Pisher relays his thoughts on it.
quote:
Originally posted by AL:
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: One more request Marc.
Can you only create threads for shows AL likes and change the name of this forum to AL's PIFeedback?
quote:
Originally posted by AL: Great! Now quick... everybody make that post you have been waiting to make in the My Dad is Better Than Your Dad show thread... quick...
wiseguy, I was just poking fun at that show. And I actually have watched that show because my kids enjoy it. Just don't see it as a heavily discussed show on a forum. But hey, maybe I am wrong.
====================
Posts: 5903 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: 20 September 2006
Agreed. Given Fox owns everything surrounding the show (network, studio, etc.), they can continue it ten more years if they want.
But since NBC doesn't own "ER", and with its diminished ratings performance, how can they justify keeping it on the air? Didn't NBC pay Warner $13 million in licensing fees per episode at one point?
I think the only reason it hasn't already been canceled is that nobody at NBC wants to be the person who canceled ER. It's not much now, but it was one of the cornerstones of their climb back to ratings dominance. If whatever replaces it doesn't do well, whoever advocated for the cancellation will take a hit. But if nobody takes that step, with this and other shows, NBC will never dominate the ratings again.
The same thing is happening with Law & Order.
Both shows are perpetually on the bubble these days, but NBC is afraid of bursting the bubble--afraid to give up shows that are symbolic of past success. Paradoxically, they'd be much less nervous about canceling younger shows with those ratings--shows that still had their original stars, and some vague reason to go on existing, other than making a handful of rich people even richer.
If and when these "younger shows with those ratings" show up, we can test your theory.
The continuation of ER and L&O is not the cause of NBC's problems, rather a symptom.
Posts: 1589 | Location: Western Pennsylvania | Registered: 13 December 2006
If and when these "younger shows with those ratings" show up, we can test your theory.
The continuation of ER and L&O is not the cause of NBC's problems, rather a symptom.
Fair enough.
But when you're already sick, don't you treat the symptoms? The time to deal with the root causes is BEFORE you get sick.
NBC could do a whole lot of experimenting with new programming, for the money they're currently blowing on shows that cost so much to air that they can't hope to make a profit from them. And these shows aren't winning them the new audiences they need. They're just maintaining the well-justified opinion that NBC is living off its past glories.
Though personally, I don't think there was ever anything terribly glorious about ER or L&O, other than their ratings.
House and Bones take over the slots from CL & NA, in Mid April, once the new shows have their run completed.
quote:
Originally posted by Naleyfanforver:
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: I'm sure a big bite will be taken out of both, but the question is.... "What will be an acceptable level against DWtS?"
Mondays all of a sudden looks very competitive. DOND - DWTS - BBT/HIMYM - CL.
CL should be in 4th next week, but if it can stay close to DOND and/or BBT/HIMYM, then it has a shot for extended life.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: looks like both series did well last night.
I thought Canterbury’s Law was a very good show, for a pilot. A little typical at times, but I really liked it.
It does put pressure on shows like T:SCC and PB as far as what gets renewed for next season.
quote:
In series-premiere news, Fox legal drama Canterbury’s Law (headlined by the riveting Julianna Margulies) got off to a respectable start, with a first-place 5.7 rating/9 share in the overnights at 8 p.m. One year earlier, however, a repeat of House was stronger at a 6.9/11 on March 12, 2007. Canterbury’s Law led into the time period premiere of New Amsterdam, which rose to 6.1/ 9 at 9 p.m. Comparably, that ranked third in the time period, 27 percent below year-ago occupant 24 (8.4/13).
Very promising, although the true test is next week, when they face the return of Dancing With the Stars and 2.5 Men, etc.
House is also moving to Monday nights right?
And don't forget the CW's new Monday night line up of GG and OTH!
Originally posted by tvratingsjunkie: It was new, i have my dvr set to record first run episodes only, and it recorded last nights episode.
Not to pick nits, but the way to tell if a show is new is to actually watch some of it and determine if you have seen it before. A DVR has no way of knowing it a show is actually 'new'. The DVR just records what the DVR guide says.
I don't use DVR, but on my guide, it lists the year of origin. At this time of year, that alone can indicate whether or not it's new.
Posts: 406 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 25 January 2008
DVR's can indeed tell if a show is new or not and it works 99% of the time. The only network that it occasionally fails on are cable shows on the USA Network or Lifetime.
That's why they created a setting for automatically recording only new episodes. Welcome to 2008!
quote:
Originally posted by RoyBoyCF:
quote:
Originally posted by Obveeus:
quote:
Originally posted by tvratingsjunkie: It was new, i have my dvr set to record first run episodes only, and it recorded last nights episode.
Not to pick nits, but the way to tell if a show is new is to actually watch some of it and determine if you have seen it before. A DVR has no way of knowing it a show is actually 'new'. The DVR just records what the DVR guide says.
I don't use DVR, but on my guide, it lists the year of origin. At this time of year, that alone can indicate whether or not it's new.
====================
Posts: 5903 | Location: Chicago, IL | Registered: 20 September 2006
network show Repeat Viewers 18-49
abc America's Funniest Home Videos 6,650 1.9
abc Extreme Makeover: Home Edition 12,410 4.1
abc Oprah's Big Give 11,880 4.0
abc Here Come the Newlyweds 8,760 3.5
cbs 60 Minutes 11,740 1.8
cbs Cold Case r 7,840 1.7
cbs Dexter r 6,630 1.9
cbs Big Brother 6,370 2.2
fox King of the Hill r 2,720 1.2
fox American Dad r 3,220 1.5
fox Simpsons 7,310 3.5
fox King of the Hill 6,250 3.0
fox Family Guy r 7,490 3.7
fox Unhitched 5,140 2.5
nbc Most Outrageous Moments 7,910 2.1
nbc Law & Order r 6,650 1.7
nbc Law & Order: sVU r 8,620 2.3
