Well YEAH, but would MRC sign a contract where they're going to be paying a lot of money to create programming, with no penalty built-in to discourage CW from yanking the rug out from under them?
I'm just asking whether CW or MRC is dumber, really.
Originally posted by BlueLick: ABC might have to hang up PD here. The PD fans didn't try to save their show, which would've been getting the show over 7.5 million viewers and a solid demo performance. Neither of which happened as the series sunk to a new-series low thus killing the rest of its Wednesday Night. ABC has got to axe the show after a performance like that as there's no reason to save the show at this point.
Umm.. What?
You make no sense at all.
"Fans didn't try to save Pushing Daisies"
.. Umm yes they did. Thousands of $ was raised to send daisies to ABC, a big online petition, and a letter writing campaign. So what de hale are you talking about? We did try.
"which would've been getting the show over 7.5 million viewers and a solid demo performance"
Umm, again, WHAT? You talk nonsense. You say that if PD fans tried to save the show (which we did), the show would suddenly get 7 mil and a good demo?
I really don't understand why you post your crap. You sound like a 10 year old. What you say is either obvious or doesn't make sense.
Anyway, as much as I loved PD, part of me is glad that it's gone. With 2 shortened seasons, it's gone before it starts getting stale.
Posts: 518 | Location: England (UK) | Registered: 11 October 2007
Well YEAH, but would MRC sign a contract where they're going to be paying a lot of money to create programming, with no penalty built-in to discourage CW from yanking the rug out from under them?
I'm just asking whether CW or MRC is dumber, really.
Probably too close to call.
Maybe MRC saw this opportunity as a "launching pad"
Well YEAH, but would MRC sign a contract where they're going to be paying a lot of money to create programming, with no penalty built-in to discourage CW from yanking the rug out from under them?
I'm just asking whether CW or MRC is dumber, really.
Probably too close to call.
I thought MRC didn't make all the payments which is the grounds CW used to cancel the contract. If so, CW wouldn't have to pay a dime would they? If that is the case...good call on CW's part. Because the MRC shows were dogs.
Yes, if anything is to be learned from yesterday axing festival that ABC went on is that shows, especially new one need to stay on the schedule even when it is repeat time otherwise the viewers will watch something else.
There's some truth in that, but here's the problem--if you make shows that few people want to watch, and even fewer want to watch twice, you're going to be forced to choose between either long hiatuses or abysmally low ratings--I mean, c'mon--what do you think this week's PD would have gotten as a REPEAT?
PD did get the big ratings when it started so ABC was right in keeping with it until it lost half of it viewers. Yesterday decision was the right one. As for repeats, not many shows do well in repeat, only procedural do well but that said exposure is better than no exposure. Anyway in PD case it was over, once the viewers like me had check it out and decided thanks but no thanks.
But you do bring a good point, should Network TV bring tv shows that people want to watched like procedurals or shows that gets the buzz, gets the critics seal of approval and truck loads of Emmy but get low ratings? Yesterday clean up by ABC just answered that question.
quote:
The shows being canceled were all dropping in the ratings before they went on hiatus. The strike and the long absence merely prolonged their existence. The strike did not kill PD, no matter what Kristen Chenowith thinks. It artificially prolonged the existence of all that--artificiality. Which now, mercifully is GONE.
No the strike didn't kill PD, the viewers fleeing after watching a few episodes did kill it.
quote:
Also, repeat can bring in new viewers especially those who did not watch the first time. When my fav shows are on repeat, it is a time for me to watch something that I never had time for before.
quote:
A show that is losing viewers in first-run will lose them faster in repeats. Give it up. There was not a large enough audience for these shows. There never would have been. Let them rust in peace.
Giving it up? I was never a viewer of those shows, I was planning on watching DSM, I have recorded it but never had the time. Eli never catched my attention, watched one episode and decided to watch something else.
I haven't watched Life but will give it a try once Criminal Minds is in repeat, maybe I will like it and DVR it on Wednesday but with Criminal Minds and Lost in the same time slot come January, Life may not make it on my to see list.
PD did get the big ratings when it started so ABC was right in keeping with it until it lost half of it viewers.
It was wrong to greenlight the show at all--its decline was inevitable. Its original audience was bought dearly, through expensive promotion and a pilot directed by a major motion picture director. It was never going to last.
I understand your points, but please understand mine--it doesn't matter what the networks do with their shows if they don't pick the right ones to start with.
quote:
Yesterday decision was the right one. As for repeats, not many shows do well in repeat, only procedural do well but that said exposure is better than no exposure.
In the case of shows like PD and ES, I strongly disagree. I think the more people see of them, the less they like them. You don't solve a problem like that with repeats. In principle you're right, but in this specific instance you're wrong. They couldn't have afforded the ratings PD would have gotten as a repeat.
quote:
But you do bring a good point, should Network TV bring tv shows that people want to watched like procedurals or shows that gets the buzz, gets the critics seal of approval and truck loads of Emmy but get low ratings?
Neither. They should find the real talents out there--not the exploitive formulaic hackmeisters like Dick Wolf, or the posing frauds like Bryan Fuller, but the real storytellers, with real stories to tell. And if they don't do that, it really doesn't matter what else they do. We'll just watch less and less TV, until even a hit network procedural in a great timeslot will be lucky to attract 5 million viewers.
There's too much TV, and it all looks too much alike--and PD wasn't an exception to that rule, in spite of its high style. Compare it to a show like Twin Peaks and the difference is clear. PD had nothing to say, and nothing to show. It wasn't an alternative--it was just as formulaic as CSI or Law & Order--just a different formula, that most people couldn't tolerate.
quote:
No the strike didn't kill PD, the viewers fleeing after watching a few episodes did kill it.
So repeating it would have simply accelerated that process.
I thought MRC didn't make all the payments which is the grounds CW used to cancel the contract. If so, CW wouldn't have to pay a dime would they? If that is the case...good call on CW's part. Because the MRC shows were dogs.
Good call, too late. CW degraded its already-tattered image by making the deal to begin with.
And honestly, if they can't manage anything more than Jericho repeats and movies, they shouldn't bother to program for Sunday at all.
I would never avoid shows that I feared would be cancelled. I think people that do that are illogical. The concept of avoiding good TV in favor of bad tv simply because the bad tv has a better chance of remaining on the air makes no sense. I do not watch TV in order to have something to do. I watch TV to be entertained. Some entertainment, followed by cancellation is far better than getting no entertainment in the first place. I would not exchange a single moment of Pushing Daisies or Firefly or Aliens in America for seasons of CSIs and Law&Orders.
The issue here isn't serialized vs. episodic, comedies vs. procedurals, etc. It's whether a handful of people should get to determine what everybody else gets to watch.
PD was a show most people could never have gotten into. NEVER. It was a show for people with very specific tastes, and IMO, not very good taste, but honestly--I know smart people who liked it. And other smart people who loathed it beyond all reason--and no, I don't just mean me. My reaction to it was very widespread--probably more people hated PD than loved it.
Does that mean it didn't deserve to live?
No TV show deserves anything. They are entertainment, yes--MASS entertainment. The resources that go into a show like that demand that it reach a lot of people, not just please a tiny clique.
If Bryan Fuller wanted to make a show that would have limited appeal, he could have made it for less money, for a cable network. Yes, the production values would have been less impressive--so? Where is it written that the tiny percentage of people who happen to like that kind of show get fabulous production values, no matter how putrid the ratings are? I don't see that right listed in the Constitution.
Did PD advance the art of TV? No. Will it be remembered for generations to come as a watershed in the artform, like The Twilight Zone and Twin Peaks? HELL no. Did it have any major points to make about our society, any unforgettable characters who will linger in our collective memories, any lines of dialogue that will live on as catchphrases? Nope. Nope. Nope. It's DEAD, Jim. A year from now, 99% of the country will have forgotten it was ever on. I mean, outside of a few fansites, who remembers Firefly or Wonderfalls? NOBODY.
I get that some people loved PD, and are sad about its demise, but it HURT the cause of good scripted TV. Scripted TV is weaker now because of shows like Pushing Daisies and Eli Stone. They did a lot of harm, as have other clique-ish overbudgeted overly self-conscious shows before them, and it's good they are dead now. If we're going to have good TV drama again, we need to stop shows like this before they even start. They're the clinging vines that strangle the mighty oak.
And the people who liked them have nothing to complain about--they got something they really liked, which all of us subsidized (because our consumer dollars go to buy advertising on these shows). They can watch these shows on DVD. And face it, they'd never have gotten a satisfactory conclusion to any of them. Crazed online fans of TV shows are never satisfied. Never. Ever. Ever.
But I'm feeling fairly satisfied now.
Of course, SCC still isn't canceled, and that Nathan Fillion show hasn't even premiered yet.
The struggle continues.
Right on the money! Thank you. Keep on the good fight
Posts: 78 | Location: Azores | Registered: 30 October 2008
Pushing Daisies (ABC)
