Actually, I was in Las Vegas covering NATPE. But it was fun.
quote:
Originally posted by robycop3: Hopeya had fun on yer days off, Marc! And thanx to Travis for ably filling in.
I useta like FNL, but I thought they shoulda ended it in season 1 with a dignified finale as the movie had, with closure as to what became of the chars as time passed.
Smackdown remains the CW's only positive outside something with Tyra Banks in it. Its 2nd half growth is worth noting.
Originally posted by robycop3: IMO, not bad #s for a repeat of Moonlight.
Great numbers. I'm sure some here will still say it was a lowly outing, but I'm very pleased with those numbers given the tv climate right now.
LOL. Those aren't great numbers, those are fantastic, phenomenal, outstanding numbers
heh. spot the sarcasm. :P
I still say in the world of Moonlight, 5.91 is something to be happy about. Granted, repeats haven't done all that well, but this was 1.3 mil higher than average.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: Why in the world hasn't Disney fired the chimps in charge at ABC and put someone in place who will at least schedule Primetime, WMC repeats, and 20/20 on Fridays. That alone will improve the night significantly. Also, why didn't Eli Stone get an encore last night? Wouldn't that have made sense instead of airing a repeat of Housewives?
I agree, although that won't fix the other 5.5 hours of poor programming. :/ It's kind of sad to think a special edition of a Friday show will do better than original scripted programming on Monday (and this is scripted programming barely (not?) worthy of renewal).
Posts: 406 | Location: Arkansas | Registered: 25 January 2008
Just a question. WHy doesn't WWE ever rate being a winner. Its extremely consistent. Its one of the CW strongest performers, (when you factor in the nature of repeats for Smallvile and Top Model, its the CW highest performer) on a night with lower viewer levels.
Sure I personally think its utter crap, but on just a performance level, doesn't it deserve winner status more often.
I still say in the world of Moonlight, 5.91 is something to be happy about. Granted, repeats haven't done all that well, but this was 1.3 mil higher than average.
This night it repeated better than Bones. That's impressive considering that Bones is a procedural.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: What! How can 80 million viewers guaranteed for a lead in not help? House will likely crack the 30 million viewer mark in my mind.
I agree. House will get at least an additional 10 million viewers just from TV sets where the viewers fell asleep watching the Superbowl and left the TV set on.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: Also, why didn't Eli Stone get an encore last night? Wouldn't that have made sense instead of airing a repeat of Housewives?
ABC seems to be trying to keep the repeats of Desperate Housewives airing outside of the regular timeslot so that the show's season long rating doesn't drop in half. Yes, I said half since virtually no one watches DH repeats. ABC really needs to rethink their strategy of programming only for the female soap viewer since those shows all repeat extremely poorly.
I still say in the world of Moonlight, 5.91 is something to be happy about. Granted, repeats haven't done all that well, but this was 1.3 mil higher than average.
This night it repeated better than Bones. That's impressive considering that Bones is a procedural.
Not really since Bones isn't even on its regular night and from what I've heard, isn't Moonlight one of those semi-serialized shows ala Boston Legal where each week's storyline is wrapped up each week with overhead storylines continuing?
Originally posted by mushu_jj: Also, why didn't Eli Stone get an encore last night? Wouldn't that have made sense instead of airing a repeat of Housewives?
ABC seems to be trying to keep the repeats of Desperate Housewives airing outside of the regular timeslot so that the show's season long rating doesn't drop in half. Yes, I said half since virtually no one watches DH repeats. ABC really needs to rethink their strategy of programming only for the female soap viewer since those shows all repeat extremely poorly.
ABC shouldn't ditch the female soaps they have right now. They should just focus future efforts on programming that other crowds will enjoy more too and enjoy in repeats too. WMC was a start imo and I think they need to consider adding a couple procedural dramas next fall. One could lead off Friday and the other could perhaps get a slot behind one of the big guns (either Housewives or Dancing with the Stars). Eli Stone imo is another good example of a show that they should go after.
Originally posted by Obveeus: ABC seems to be trying to keep the repeats of Desperate Housewives airing outside of the regular timeslot so that the show's season long rating doesn't drop in half.
Another example of this is when CBS will air Shark at 9 and Cold Case at 10 against the Super Bowl tomorrow; maybe even 60 Minutes' 8 o'clock slotting is a part of that strategy. And I'm pretty sure they did the CC/WAT flip at least once last season as well. What a dumb rule.
Originally posted by Obveeus: ABC seems to be trying to keep the repeats of Desperate Housewives airing outside of the regular timeslot so that the show's season long rating doesn't drop in half.
Another example of this is when CBS will air Shark at 9 and Cold Case at 10 against the Super Bowl tomorrow; maybe even 60 Minutes' 8 o'clock slotting is a part of that strategy. And I'm pretty sure they did the CC/WAT flip at least once last season as well. What a dumb rule.
I agree. It is a dumb rule. I honestly have never understood why anyone would want to just watch repeats of a show week after week especially now. Why not try something original?
The chimps purposely put on a low rated show to kick off the night so people would turn the dial to see their friend Jake The Chimp on 1 vs. 100 last night.
quote:
Originally posted by mushu_jj: Why in the world hasn't Disney fired the chimps in charge at ABC and put someone in place who will at least schedule Primetime, WMC repeats, and 20/20 on Fridays.
