Originally posted by tvismyjob: You guys are dreaming!
The producers & show runners would NEVER EVER EVER allow their shows to go on live, without written material. Regardless of how good the actors are, it will never happen.
The topic we were discussing wasn't about actors doing material without the writers. The topic was about the writer's strike ending late in the TV season. So, the actors would have scripts, but only right near sweeps time.
My impression is that the networks have already accepted this season is compromised. My guess is the true negotiation will start in spring, beacause that's when the networks will get frightened by the thought of another seson without original programming
And By the way the networks will make a huge error if they'll try many many reality shows. This could backfire and even the highly rated reality shows may have problems in the future. I mean how many reality shows can we take?
The Big Bang Theory (Viewers: #2, 9.39 million; A18-49: #2, 3.8/ 9),
Almost exactly the same as last week. Hopefully the Strike does not kill the momentum of the show.
I don't think it will. If viewers really enjoy the series they will find it again. I may be biased though because I am a fan of the show. On another note, last night's HIMYM may be my favorite of the series so far.
Originally posted by Shannon: First, with regards to promos ... the promos I see are usually run during the summer ... not during the season. By the time the fall season has started I've pretty much made up my mind which tv shows I'll be watching and like I said before I generally do not start watching a show in the middle of the season, however I will start watching a show after seeing promos during the previous summer and catching up with the show via DVD. Next with regards to reading up on what TV shows are about before a season start, why would you think a casual TV viewer (as you put it) would not read up on tv shows they are interested in (and I'm talking about reading up in either TV Guide or Entertainment Weekly's Fall Premiere issues or by reading the synopsis that is printed about each show after they are put on the fall schedule at up fronts)?
Most TV viewers are not reading up on the upfronts or tracking pilot news. Most TV viewers cannot ramble off the entire week's TV schedule by heart or even remember what network their favorite shows are on. Most TV viewers hear about shows through 'word of mouth' buzz, commercials, and infomercials like 'Entertainment tonight' or the entertainment 'news' segment on their local newscast. The fewer viewers your network has, the harder it is to attract viewers to a new show or keep viewers watching a current show.
I was also curious about this...did the eleven markets missing from the overnights really bring the averages down that much? I found that hard to believe...can a household rating be HIGHER than the number of viewers?
quote:
Originally posted by Sorcerer8605:
quote:
Originally posted by TV-aholic: Ahhhhhhhh.... Real Numbers.
LOL.
Yeah, I know. What's up with The CW? The overnights were 2.4, 1.9, 2.6, and 2.8, or something very close to that, but in terms of viewers, the night was a little backwards: 2.7 mil, 2.24 mil, 2.2 mil, and 2.5 mil. I realize that the overnights are not the most accurate numbers, but you'd think that a show with a 2.4 overnight and a 2.7 mil would be LOWER than a show at 2.8 (or whatever The Game was)...but no, The Game had 2.55 mil. It's interesting, to say the least.
The Big Bang Theory (Viewers: #2, 9.39 million; A18-49: #2, 3.8/ 9),
Almost exactly the same as last week. Hopefully the Strike does not kill the momentum of the show.
I don't think it will. If viewers really enjoy the series they will find it again. I may be biased though because I am a fan of the show. On another note, last night's HIMYM may be my favorite of the series so far.
I agree to a certain extent ... I think if you are a big fan of a show and a regular viewer then chances are the strike won't have much of an impact on whether you continue after the strike has been resolved and tv starts up again to watch the shows that you watched before the strike. Of course, if you aren't a regular viewer of a show and only a casual viewer then a show may lose some of those viewers. Of course for me, I'm a a regular viewer, so I have little doubt that I'll continue to watch the shows I do now after the strike is over, but I'm pretty sure that won't always be the case across the board.
The topic we were discussing wasn't about actors doing material without the writers. The topic was about the writer's strike ending late in the TV season. So, the actors would have scripts, but only right near sweeps time.
Well, I'm sure we're glad to know you weren't suggesting the actors just get up there and wing it.
Problem is, the shows would look bad, and it would hurt them longterm. And as has been pointed out, it's very unlikely to be given any serious consideration--too many obstacles, too little benefit.
Originally posted by Shannon: I personally think way too much emphasis is put on a show's lead in with regards to its success or its failure. I mean, maybe its just me, but if I'm not just going to automatically watch a show that follows up another show that I watch. If I watch a show, I watch it because it seems interesting and if I don't watch a show, its because I think it won't be interesting ... not because I watched the show before it. If I watch a show and nothing else interesting is on after it, I either turn the channel or turn off the tv. I'm not going to watch a tv show I'm not interested in just for the sake of having something to watch.
The lead in helps to promote a show coming up right afterwards.
Lead-ins were more important when sitcoms dominated primetime...remember when ANYTHING NBC put on Thursdays @ 8:30 & 9:30 automatically became a top 10 show...no matter what? I remember during the final season of Seinfeld, when NBC started airing reruns on Wednesday before 3rd Rock in order to boost ratings for 3rd Rock....and it actually worked.
But now lead-ins are pretty much useless...shows have failed after Grey's Anatomy, DWTS, Lost, Heroes, etc....and not just failing by the standards their lead-ins set, but actually getting low ratings relative to the REST of network television...
More than ever, shows really do need to come out on their own...even 1/2 hour shows that DO hold their lead-ins (Rodney, Freddie, Yes Dear was building on Still Standing in its last season) are not safe if the lead-in is weak.
quote:
Originally posted by himymfan22:
quote:
Originally posted by Shannon: I personally think way too much emphasis is put on a show's lead in with regards to its success or its failure. I mean, maybe its just me, but if I'm not just going to automatically watch a show that follows up another show that I watch. If I watch a show, I watch it because it seems interesting and if I don't watch a show, its because I think it won't be interesting ... not because I watched the show before it. If I watch a show and nothing else interesting is on after it, I either turn the channel or turn off the tv. I'm not going to watch a tv show I'm not interested in just for the sake of having something to watch.
The lead in helps to promote a show coming up right afterwards.
Most TV viewers are not reading up on the upfronts or tracking pilot news.
Maybe, but it doesn't mean that some of us don't.
quote:
Most TV viewers cannot ramble off the entire week's TV schedule by heart or even remember what network their favorite shows are on.
I certainly can't ramble off an entire week's TV schedule by heart, but the ones I watch I usually do know by virtue of TV Guide if and when they're on and I do know the network, but I wouldn't expect that all people know that.
quote:
Most TV viewers hear about shows through 'word of mouth' buzz, commercials, and infomercials like 'Entertainment tonight' or the entertainment 'news' segment on their local newscast.
True and that has even been the case with me. For instance initially I didn't have any interest in "Pushing Daisies", but after hearing the buzz over the summer and seeing the commercials and eventually hearing and reading more about it, it is definetely a must see show for me. I guess you could also say that it was also that way with "The Office" for me as well (see previous post for more details).
Originally posted by SleptOn: But now lead-ins are pretty much useless...shows have failed after Grey's Anatomy, DWTS, Lost, Heroes, etc....and not just failing by the standards their lead-ins set, but actually getting low ratings relative to the REST of network television...
Maybe if they put good shows on there it would work.
