Nope, I did not watch it. I have not watched it for about 10 years now
Even longer for me.
It was so obviously way past time for it to go.
And 16.2mil is about a third what the highest-rated episode of ER got, many years back.
Yes, when the initial cast was intact, and broadcast networks received normal viewing levels more than double that they get now. We will never see a show that reaches the heights of ER again. I don't even think we will ever see a new show that gets up to 20 million, like CSI and GA used to.
Why are some people faulting CBS for airing original programming against NBC's (long overdue) finale of "E.R."? (In full disclosure, I haven't watched an episode of "E.R." since Gloria Rueben departed and did not watch the finale.)
Broadcast television is a business, and like any business, it must make money to succeed. Television series are not renewed merely because network executives like them (though that charge is often thrown around). A network has to be making money on a series to justify its continued airing.
It looks as though only ABC aired reruns (from 9:00-11:00 p.m.) opposite the "E.R." spectacle. Fox didn't bother to take a dive for NBC, neither did the CW. Why should we expect these competing networks to air reruns in deference to "E.R."? The reason ABC aired reruns of "Grey's Anatomy" and "Private Practice" probably has more to do with having enough original episodes to air until the (traditional) season ends in May than any sort of deferential treatment to NBC.
Second, NBC should hope that Jay Leno's new 10:00 p.m. series is a hit out of the gate in September. If it isn't, more affiliates - especially in larger markets - could emulate NBC's Boston affiliate WHDH and refuse to air the show.
While NBC is understandably upset by WHDH's announcement to air local news instead of Leno at the 10:00 p.m. hour, I'm not sure what exactly NBC can do about it. Sure, NBC could strip WHDH's affiliation (as it has not so subtly threatened to do), but is WHDH actually in violation of its affiliate agreement with NBC? I know local affiliates are not required to air national network programming (look at the number of Fox affiliates that opted not to air the Osbourne family sketch show earlier in the week). All this sound and fury coming from NBC could be nothing more than saber rattling, designed to discourage affiliates from following WHDH's lead.
So, and I don't think CSI is even close to being a loser, but if you are correct that he judges shows by year to year comparison, than CSI would be a loser. Marc will never use year to year with CBS when the show has gone down.
No wonder you cannot understand Marc's analysis, you could not even understand what I wrote. I clearly wrote that time slot year-to-year is consistently used for the LOSER'S list...how hard is it to understand what someone actually wrote instead of project your hatred and bias on what you *wished* they would have written?
AI is significantly down year-to-year, but they are still a winner and will be on the winner's list for a long time because of the numbers they get. Are you going to dispute that? Similarly, CSI's numbers are worthy of the winners list...if ANY show on *NBC* got those numbers and Marc left them off the winner's list you would be screaming for weeks!
My wife (in her 20s) and I (also well within the demo) were huge fans of Kid Nation, and I hated seeing Kid Nation on the Loser's list. I understood the reasoning, but still hoped for another season. We are big Dollhouse and 90210 fans so I hate seeing them on the Loser's list also, but I think the analysis is fair.
Second, NBC should hope that Jay Leno's new 10:00 p.m. series is a hit out of the gate in September. If it isn't, more affiliates - especially in larger markets - could emulate NBC's Boston affiliate WHDH and refuse to air the show.
NBC owns *all* of the affiliates in markets larger than Boston.
Originally posted by Zedman2: Bids for the repurposing and off-net rights for Anatomy closed Friday; BVT is said to have been seeking $2 million per episode under an all-cash, four-year licensing deal—with no cap on the number of seasons.
What does this mean? How can you have a four-year deal with no cap on the number of seasons?
I believe future seasons get rolled into the deal which is why According to Jim continues.
But if you only have a licensing deal that last 4 years, you cannot possibly end up with more than 4 additional seasons to pay for, right?
The licensing deal is for four years, which is not the same as the number of seasons available to be stripped. During the four years, if additional seasons (episodes) become available, they become part of the four year syndication deal if there is no cap in the number of seasons. This would become additional revenue the studio would receive over the life of the four year deal.
So, and I don't think CSI is even close to being a loser, but if you are correct that he judges shows by year to year comparison, than CSI would be a loser. Marc will never use year to year with CBS when the show has gone down.
No wonder you cannot understand Marc's analysis, you could not even understand what I wrote. I clearly wrote that time slot year-to-year is consistently used for the LOSER'S list...how hard is it to understand what someone actually wrote instead of project your hatred and bias on what you *wished* they would have written?
AI is significantly down year-to-year, but they are still a winner and will be on the winner's list for a long time because of the numbers they get. Are you going to dispute that? Similarly, CSI's numbers are worthy of the winners list...if ANY show on *NBC* got those numbers and Marc left them off the winner's list you would be screaming for weeks!
My wife (in her 20s) and I (also well within the demo) were huge fans of Kid Nation, and I hated seeing Kid Nation on the Loser's list. I understood the reasoning, but still hoped for another season. We are big Dollhouse and 90210 fans so I hate seeing them on the Loser's list also, but I think the analysis is fair.
My point was, that I agree that Marc often uses year to year when judging shows. He will often state the percentage increase/decrease for a show from the previous season. But he distorts his analysis by using the numbers when it works for him, i.e. when CBS is going up and when ABC or NBC are going down.
Did he bother to mention that CSI dropped from 20.40 last year to a series low of 14.38 last night? Or from a 5.8 18-49 rating last year to a series low 3.7 last night? Of course not. Have you ever seen him use year to year when a CBS show has gone down?
Originally posted by Zedman2: Bids for the repurposing and off-net rights for Anatomy closed Friday; BVT is said to have been seeking $2 million per episode under an all-cash, four-year licensing deal—with no cap on the number of seasons.
What does this mean? How can you have a four-year deal with no cap on the number of seasons?
I believe future seasons get rolled into the deal which is why According to Jim continues.
But if you only have a licensing deal that last 4 years, you cannot possibly end up with more than 4 additional seasons to pay for, right?
The licensing deal is for four years, which is not the same as the number of seasons available to be stripped. During the four years, if additional seasons (episodes) become available, they become part of the four year syndication deal if there is no cap in the number of seasons. This would become additional revenue the studio would receive over the life of the four year deal.
So, just like I wrote above, you cannot possibly end up with more than 4 additional seasons to pay for.
Originally posted by Jay: I know local affiliates are not required to air national network programming (look at the number of Fox affiliates that opted not to air the Osbourne family sketch show earlier in the week).
They are required to air the national programming. I am sure that each station gets a few exceptions for local sports/charity/news specials, but they are not allowed to preempt 1/3rd of the national programming from their network (as Boston apparently intends to do by not airing Leno).
Why are some people faulting CBS for airing original programming against NBC's (long overdue) finale of "E.R."?
It's one thing to air an original episode...it's another to air the 200th episode of one of the most popular series on TV -- the show that helped knock NBC off its Thursday night perch (well, that and the loss of "Friends").
Why couldn't CBS have waited until next week to air the 200th episode? Did it have to be this week? There's no way the network didn't have a couple of standalone episodes in the can. But the 200th? That type of scheduling just feels personal to me.
Second, NBC should hope that Jay Leno's new 10:00 p.m. series is a hit out of the gate in September. If it isn't, more affiliates - especially in larger markets - could emulate NBC's Boston affiliate WHDH and refuse to air the show.
NBC owns *all* of the affiliates in markets larger than Boston.
Most networks own their affiliates in the largest market, but there are still large markets (perhaps not as large as Boston) were NBC does not own its affiliate.
NBC owns 10 affiliates in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco/San Jose, New Britain (CT), D.C., Miami, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Fort Worth.
That still leaves several large markets where NBC does not own an affiliate, such as Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, Detroit, Houston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, Tampa, etc.
So, if a handful of these non owned-and-operated affiliates were to follow Boston's lead, Jay Leno's new show could be stalled out of the gate.
Originally posted by Jay: I know local affiliates are not required to air national network programming (look at the number of Fox affiliates that opted not to air the Osbourne family sketch show earlier in the week).
They are required to air the national programming. I am sure that each station gets a few exceptions for local sports/charity/news specials, but they are not allowed to preempt 1/3rd of the national programming from their network (as Boston apparently intends to do by not airing Leno).
I know we are talking about a different time/network and only once a week instead of five nights a week, but ABC affiliates did not have a problem in refusing to air "NYPD Blue" due to perceived racy content when it first aired.
I know that affiliates are given latitude in regards to whether they air certain series. I'm not sure of the exact language in the contracts, but I'm sure that WHDH had their lawyers look into the situation before announcing that they will not air Leno's new primetime show.
If NBC really want to act like asses, WHDH could opt to air Leno, but air him after Carson Daly in the late late late of night.
Originally posted by Pixley: Why couldn't CBS have waited until next week to air the 200th episode? Did it have to be this week? There's no way the network didn't have a couple of standalone episodes in the can. But the 200th? That type of scheduling just feels personal to me.
Um...technically speaking, if they had aired some other new episode it would have become the '200th episode', right?
On the other hand, you question is valid with respect to the logic of CBS airing a rerun during sweeps a few weeks ago, which forced them to air this 'special' episode outside of sweeps.
I asked earlier if anyone had a tv lineup list for nights when other big shows had their finale, but no one has answered the call, yet.
