# Lost repeats are getting out of hand.



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

This week is a new episode but I checked next week and it is another repeat. Come on. I think they show more repeats than new episodes. January we had 3 new episodes and then a repeat. Then in Feburary which suppose to be sweeps we only get 2 new episodes and 2 weeks of repeats. What really gets me peaved is that they are showing last season episodes.

I am really starting to lose interest in the show having to wait weeks between new episodes. Maybe they should do what 24 does and start the show midseason. 24 is keeping me interesting because it is new every week and next week is 2 new episodes on one night. Just venting.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

reddice said:


> I am really starting to lose interest in the show having to wait weeks between new episodes. Maybe they should do what 24 does and start the show midseason. 24 is keeping me interesting because it is new every week and next week is 2 new episodes on one night. Just venting.


Same feeling here, I stopped watching it all together... I'll just get it on dvd after the fact.

I have an idea, lets go to hawaii and kidnap jj abrams.


----------



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

I will be getting season 2 dvd. Nothing is better than watching one episode after another. Like I said, tell ABC to start season 3 midseason. I did not mind waiting for 24. Actually time went fast and the season was here before long.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

devdogaz, there's your cue.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

If people at work didn't talk about it, I would just tivo them all and watch them once the season was done.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

MikeMar said:


> If people at work didn't talk about it, I would just tivo them all and watch them once the season was done.


That is pretty much what I am doing. I have watched the first two, but I am stockpiling the rest. I did have one roll off because my interest had waned so much that I forgot to save it.

I really don't know why ABC does this, except they are poopy heads.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

marksman said:


> That is pretty much what I am doing. I have watched the first two, but I am stockpiling the rest. I did have one roll off because my interest had waned so much that I forgot to save it.
> 
> I really don't know why ABC does this, except they are poopy heads.


"poopy heads" LOL.


----------



## joits (Feb 8, 2006)

get we get some cheese to go with all the wine in here...


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Lost is unique. No other show in the history of television has had as many repeats as it does. No one else even shows repeats.  

Lost has no more or less repeats than any other show.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> Lost is unique. No other show in the history of television has had as many repeats as it does. No one else even shows repeats.
> 
> Lost has no more or less repeats than any other show.


Be that as it may, the pacing of Lost has it's ups and downs and it's momentum is ruined by the constant interruptions in runs. The simple fact of the matter is that the show's momentum would be best served by showing it uninteruppted the way that 24 and HBO and FX series run. No one can argue that the uninterrupted run makes 24's experience better. For a series with such driving stories and suspense, you can't take a 5 week break, come back with 2 new episodes, take a 3 week break, then come back with 6 episodes, etc. etc.

They would not lose any viewers, nor any interest. I know I for one would be more than willing to wait. Look how long we have to wait for the Sopranos and thats only 12 episodes!


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> devdogaz, there's your cue.


Even cutting and pasting his explanation has to be tiring. I can't believe the number of these ridiculous threads. THAT'S what's getting out of hand.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

No kidding. So there are breaks, frickin' deal with it, crybabies. There should be a new rule: anyone who complains about these breaks should be banned.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> Lost is unique. No other show in the history of television has had as many repeats as it does. No one else even shows repeats.


LOL!!!



> Be that as it may, the pacing of Lost has it's ups and downs and it's momentum is ruined by the constant interruptions in runs.


Then what you're saying is that Lost shouldn't be presented on commercial television. I cannot disagree with that more: 22 episodes of Lost presented over the course of 39 weeks is better than no Lost at all.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

bicker said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Then what you're saying is that Lost shouldn't be presented on commercial television. I cannot disagree with that more: 22 episodes of Lost presented over the course of 39 weeks is better than no Lost at all.


See, that's the attitude the commercial networks are banking on; that the viewers will just accept it. I guess most people here ARE the sheep they treat the viewers like. It seems like with them showing last season's episodes, they are more interested in getting the new viewers instead of caring about those of us who already watch. Hey! This sounds just like my rants about NASCAR.  Oh yeah, that's right, they're on network TV now too...

Cheryl


----------



## PeteEMT (Jul 24, 2003)

speedcouch said:


> This sounds just like my rants about NASCAR.  Oh yeah, that's right, they're on network TV now too...


Would you like a tight/loose explanation again?

Sorry, off topic


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> devdogaz, there's your cue.


Sorry it took me so long to respond to my cue. 

Here is what I posted in this thread:


devdogaz said:


> I've done this before, but since I can't find that post to link here, I guess I'll do it again...
> 
> Why does a thread like this appear EVERY SINGLE TIME a popular show airs a repeat episode during the season? It's completely ridiculous that you people are so addicted to the show but have no idea how the business works. Most shows only produce 22 episodes per season. There are a few that produce 24 or 25. The TV season lasts from late September until the end of May, which is 38 weeks. This means that there will be 13-16 weeks DURING THE SEASON where your favorite show will not air a new episode.
> 
> ...


In the case of Lost, the Olympics has caused them to push two episodes that normally would have shown during February into other months. It might be the reason we got three new eps in January instead of just one or two, or there may be more new eps later in the season. Tonight's Lost is episode #15 of the season. Desperate Housewives has also aired 15 eps so far. Veronica Mars has shown 13 new eps. CSI has shown 15 new episodes. Smallville has aired 15 new episodes. SVU has aired 16 new episodes.

I agree that it's difficult to get into the show because of the pacing, but I guarantee we'd have just as many people complaining if they did it any other way, like how 24 does it, or Prison Break, etc. As long as there are more weeks during the season than there are new episodes, someone is going to be pissed about the way they spread them out. They happened to choose the more traditional method and some of you don't like it. Get over it.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Hhahaha, that should be a sticky on the top of the TV-show talk


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

Thanks again, devdogaz, for the reality check.

And, speedcouch, don't you think it's a little harsh to say of people who simply accept how _essentially all episodic television has always worked:_ "I guess most people here ARE the sheep they treat the viewers like."?

If they did Lost "24 style", with 22 - 24 episodes starting in January with no repeats, I can just about guarantee that there would be just as much *****ing. Then, those of you who _liked_ the "24 format" would be the "sheep."

Sheesh, people! It's only TV!


----------



## bullitt (Feb 13, 2002)

Not only are there too many repeats but the new shows do not move the show forward. It seems like every episode is a flashback to a characters past life and there is very little spent on current events. Also, the suspense from the first few episodes of first season is all but gone.



reddice said:


> This week is a new episode but I checked next week and it is another repeat. Come on. I think they show more repeats than new episodes. January we had 3 new episodes and then a repeat. Then in Feburary which suppose to be sweeps we only get 2 new episodes and 2 weeks of repeats. What really gets me peaved is that they are showing last season episodes.
> 
> I am really starting to lose interest in the show having to wait weeks between new episodes. Maybe they should do what 24 does and start the show midseason. 24 is keeping me interesting because it is new every week and next week is 2 new episodes on one night. Just venting.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Turtleboy said:


> Lost is unique. No other show in the history of television has had as many repeats as it does. No one else even shows repeats.
> 
> Lost has no more or less repeats than any other show.


One could actually argue that it has fewer. There were 25 episodes in the first season, if you count Exodus(2) as two, as two-hour episodes are usually counted. Although since Pilot(1 & 2) and Exodus(2) were aired as two-hour episodes, that would make 23 weeks last season during which new episodes were aired, which is still more than the standard 22.

Although I guess Lost may actually air more repeats than other shows do on average, as opposed to not being on at all in a particular week. Still, I doubt that few, if any, prime-time series had more than 25 "hours" worth of new material last season.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

You know what really gets me? Those commercials. What, 19 minutes of commercials?? It seems like Lost shows more commercials than any other TV show. They should show less commercials, they are really losing my interest. When i have to wait 2, 2 1/2 minutes to see the next scene... Those ABC guys are greedy sob's.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

Fish Man said:


> And, speedcouch, don't you think it's a little harsh to say of people who simply accept how _essentially all episodic television has always worked:_ "I guess most people here ARE the sheep they treat the viewers like."?


It may sound harsh, but if we just blindly keep accepting it, then it seems to be true. That may be the way network TV has worked and maybe that's my problem; that I had gotten away from network TV for so many years. Just came back in 2002 after getting HDTV. And I guess I'm one who would just rather wait for the show to air later (like 24) and have consecutive episodes. Then the rest of the weeks, I can find something else (like movies on satellite) to watch, since I'm not expecting the show to be on. Yes, Tivo helps in that you don't get your hopes up the show is coming with a new episode (if you have only first runs selected in your SP), but I still find it extremely frustrating (and obviously others do as well).

Cheryl


----------



## Lannister80 (Oct 6, 2005)

bruinfan said:


> You know what really gets me? Those commercials. What, 19 minutes of commercials?? It seems like Lost shows more commercials than any other TV show. They should show less commercials, they are really losing my interest. When i have to wait 2, 2 1/2 minutes to see the next scene... Those ABC guys are greedy sob's.


Wait it minute, aren't we all TiVo-ing shows to watch them without commericals? I always start 60 minute shows at the 20 minute mark and catch up to "real time" by the end. Don't most folks who want to watch a show "when it's on" and have a TiVo do?

Yes, they are greedy sobs. Don't get me wrong.


----------



## editivo (Jan 22, 2001)

I agree too many repeats this is ridiculous. But this seems to be the case with Veronica Mars and alot of other shows as well. I never remember waiting weeks on end for new episodes of shows.

I am sure that the networks are starting to use a different method of showing new versus old episodes than they used to. Or I am getting old and more frustrated with BS.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

editivo said:


> I agree too many repeats this is ridiculous. But this seems to be the case with Veronica Mars and alot of other shows as well. I never remember waiting weeks on end for new episodes of shows.
> 
> I am sure that the networks are starting to use a different method of showing new versus old episodes than they used to. Or I am getting old and more frustrated with BS.


Go to www.tv.com. Type in the name of your favorite show from "way back when." Click on episodes and it will tell you when the eps from that show aired. You will see that network TV has been following this practice for decades.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

The answer is simple. There are 3 episodes left in the season. Tonights is leading up to the 2 final episodes. They then drag it out and pow us in the end. It's how its done. Sure it sucks to have repeats when you want new shows but it could be worse, could be months between new ones.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

rkester said:


> The answer is simple. There are 3 episodes left in the season. Tonights is leading up to the 2 final episodes. They then drag it out and pow us in the end. It's how its done. Sure it sucks to have repeats when you want new shows but it could be worse, could be months between new ones.


???? 

Assuming 22 episodes this season, there are at least 8 more new episodes this season.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I cannot follow this show, although it looks interesting. I will probably just wait until they figure out what is going on and why they are there, which at this pace will be 10 years from now. After that I will watch it all on DVD, or whatever technology is prevailent 10 years from now.


----------



## chewbaccad (Feb 16, 2005)

wait, were we discussing Moonlighting?  

(many moons ago, another show infamous for repeats... it's all happened before, it'll happen again)


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Ok, so I did my math wrong, sue me 

There should be 24 episodes for the season and we are on 16 tonight I beleive. My excuse is that Im old and tired and dealing wiht idiots at work so I get to add thigns up wrong.


----------



## reddice (Mar 6, 2004)

I counted the episodes. After today they would have showed 15 episodes. That leaves 9 unaired. I counted the weeks and besides next weeks repeat there should only be one 2 more weeks of repeats if they want the season finalie to be May 24th. Any more and I bet they will be doubling up on episodes in May. I understand it but I still like it better when shows come back midseason like 24.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry but I don't accept DevDogaz's explantion for this nonsense. Lost is a serial show and should be run in order. I don't really care how many weeks the tv season is. There are 4 tv seasons now anyways, so it is nothing but semantics holding on to that.

Running repeats or other episodes is fine if you have one-off shows that don't depend on each other. On a show where you expect people to follow along with you and the story connects, having multiple extended breaks throughout the season is BAD business. It will hurt the show in the long wrong, and likely contribute to an early demise as their viewer base erodes because people lose track and feel like they can not catch up.

Look at some of the places doing quality series like HBO, FX etc and they run all their episodes consecutively, and it impacts the popularity of their shows.

Quite frankly I can not understand how anyone could defend such an idiotic practice such as the way ABC handles Lost. It is not Law & Order or CSI... It should be managed differently.

Fact is there are all kinds of shows that run consecutively, so the 39 week season is a horrible cop-out and no excuse at all.

They do it because they can milk money out of the repeats. Problem is it is a short-term strategy, and undoubtly impacts the longevity of a show like that.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I don't understand what would be better about showing them all 22 weeks in a row?

I guess ABC could do it like Sci-Fi does with Atlantis and Galactica, and show 10 episodes, take a few months break, and then show 10 more. Similar to what Fox did with Prison Break.

Not sure what the benefit of that would be for the viewer.



> They do it because they can milk money out of the repeats. Problem is it is a short-term strategy, and undoubtly impacts the longevity of a show like that.


And you base this on what? Viewership figures? Ad sales? Or is it just a theory you just came up with? When you claim that it "undoubtedly" has a negative impact on a shows longevity, it would be nice with some kind of facts to back it up... especially since pretty much all long-running shows has practiced this way of doling out the episodes throughout the year.


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

I also don't understand why you'd point to HBO as an example of a good model. They might run things consecutively, but it sure takes a long time to get to the next season. At this point, I don't even remember what happened on the last season. Plus, aren't their runs shorter?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> See, that's the attitude the commercial networks are banking on


It's not an "attitude" -- it is reality.



> I guess most people here ARE the sheep they treat the viewers like.


Gosh, you must be so much better than the rest of us. 

Or perhaps you just think you are. 



> It may sound harsh, but if we just blindly keep accepting it, then it seems to be true.


I disagree, and would speculate (since you speculated about me, this is just fair-play) that it's just a reflection of your decision to see things negatively, because it makes you feel better about being anxious for the next episode. Give up on broadcast television; you're clearly not equipped to handle it.


----------



## JakeyB (Apr 24, 2003)

marksman said:


> Fact is there are all kinds of shows that run consecutively, so the 39 week season is a horrible cop-out and no excuse at all.


You should change this to "Fact is there is one show with 22+ episodes that runs consecutively". There used to be 2, 24 and Alias, but even Alias went back to the typical season this year. Your pointing to HBO and FX is not a good comparison as they run ~13 episode seasons, and in the case of HBO take sometimes almost 2 years to put out a new season.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

bicker said:


> Give up on broadcast television; you're clearly not equipped to handle it.


You are probably right! 

Cheryl


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

JakeyB said:


> You should change this to "Fact is there is one show with 22+ episodes that runs consecutively". There used to be 2, 24 and Alias, but even Alias went back to the typical season this year. Your pointing to HBO and FX is not a good comparison as they run ~13 episode seasons, and in the case of HBO take sometimes almost 2 years to put out a new season.


During the 1999-2000 season, ABC moved NYPD Blue to Monday nights with a January debut and consecutive episodes from January to May (this was NYPD Blue's 7th season on the air).

They continued this for three seasons, but went back to a more traditional Sept-May season in 2002. It stayed on this schedule until its final season, last year, when they started the season in September and ran with few off weeks through its finale in March.

I don't know why ABC chose to return NYPD Blue to a more-traditional schedule, but I'm sure it wasn't just a whim.

No matter what the networks do, fans of a show are going to complain when a show isn't airing new episodes between September and May.

I seem to recall numerous threads around here last season from fans of 24 and Alias, and this season from fans of Scrubs wondering where their show was when it wasn't on the schedule in September.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I'm actually really relieved to know I was wrong in my calculations! I was saddened to know I had only a handful of new episodes left but now I'm all giddy with anticipation!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

getbak said:


> During the 1999-2000 season, ABC moved NYPD Blue to Monday nights with a January debut and consecutive episodes from January to May (this was NYPD Blue's 7th season on the air).
> 
> They continued this for three seasons, but went back to a more traditional Sept-May season in 2002. It stayed on this schedule until its final season, last year, when they started the season in September and ran with few off weeks through its finale in March.
> 
> ...


Don't forget that if you advocate a network airing a show in consecutive weeks, it means that they have to come up with content to fill that timeslot for the other ~17 weeks of the season. That costs a lot of money. In the aforementioned case of NYPD Blue, that was easy, since ABC had Monday Night Football that aired in that slot until the end of the year. I don't remember what Fox and ABC aired during the first half of the 2004-2005 season when they delayed the starts of 24 and Alias. This season, Fox aired Prison Break, and then they had the problem of PB being a hit and not having any available timeslot in the second half of the year where they could air it.

Bottom line, the networks make more money by devoting one timeslot to one show for the entire season and occasionally showing repeats, than they would if they developed two different shows to run in that timeslot or produced more episodes of the one show. However, because reality TV is cheaper to produce, this is why you get two "seasons" of shows like Survivor, The Amazing Race, The Batchelor, etc.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

xx said:


> ...we are on 16 tonight I beleive. My excuse is that Im old and tired and dealing wiht idiots at work so I get to add thigns up wrong.





xx said:


> beleive, Im, wiht, thigns


Reminds me of the old saying, "Be careful when arguing with a fool that he is not similarly occupied."


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Should I name all the "serialized" shows in TV history that aired in pretty much the exact same way Lost airs.

I asked Dave Bott if he could spare a terrabyte of space for me.

Off the top of my head, let's see DALLAS was an extremely serialized show. I bet that hurt it, since it only ran *14 years*

You know what would air Wednesday's at 9 in the fall if Lost started in January. Something to the effect of "Dancing with Celebrities and their monkees"

-smak-


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Maybe we could just, um....spend time with our families/friends/forumites on rerun nights?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> Should I name all the "serialized" shows in TV history that aired in pretty much the exact same way Lost airs.


Only after you name all the non-serialized shows. I bet that list is far longer.

This comes in cycles. We're on the high-point of the cycle right now, probably due to DVD sales. This is the golden age. Just wait. As viewers' lives get busier, their loyalty to the television programs they watch will wain, and we'll have far fewer serialized shows.

Regardless, we get what we deserve. If you don't like it, change viewer behavior.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I like the reruns. I like them a lot. I get to catch up on other stuff in the off weeks. If every show I watched was on every week, I'd HATE it.

Reruns are a blessing, and I thank the networks for not tying me even more closely to my television.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I don't understand what would be better about showing them all 22 weeks in a row?
> 
> I guess ABC could do it like Sci-Fi does with Atlantis and Galactica, and show 10 episodes, take a few months break, and then show 10 more. Similar to what Fox did with Prison Break.
> 
> Not sure what the benefit of that would be for the viewer.


The benefit would be a level of continuity and flow with the show. When there becomes a feeling that you really need to see every episode to follow a show, being able to do that is fairly important. When it becomes a guessing game as to when a show is on the air, you just give up after a while, and watching that show becomes significantly less important to you. Yeah a split run like that would be far superior to what they are doing right now.



> And you base this on what? Viewership figures? Ad sales? Or is it just a theory you just came up with? When you claim that it "undoubtedly" has a negative impact on a shows longevity, it would be nice with some kind of facts to back it up... especially since pretty much all long-running shows has practiced this way of doling out the episodes throughout the year.


Because people stop watching it. It is a matter of attrition. When people stop watching a show it ends up leaving the air sooner then it would have if people kept watching it. Surely my experience is anecdotal, but it is massive amount of anecdotal evidence, as I know way too many people who have bailed on Lost this season.

I like how people argue that because TV has done something stupid for a long time that is somehow the right way to do it. The reason why we had 39 week tv seasons, to begin with, is because most tv shows were 39 episodes. I am talking about what is better for the viewer. Clearly some people are arguing the position of what is better for the viewer. TV used to be in black and white too, that does not mean we should not want to watch it in color because it provides a more enjoyable experience.

I just don't get this idea that because tv has done this for a while that it is somehow the best way to present a show like Lost.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

> Devdogz,
> 
> You saying the reason that Fox has not aired Prison Break for the last two plus months is because they could not find a slot to run it?
> 
> ...


Actually, Prison Break was only scheduled for 13 episodes originally. That's pretty typical for new shows. The network will extend the order to a full 22-episode season if the first few eps look like the show's going to be a hit. In the case of PB, it aired on Mondays, so it wasn't affected by baseball, and it was always intended to stop airing in Nov. and leave that timeslot for 24 in Jan. However, because PB was such a hit, they realized they had to order more episodes and find a time to air them. If you recall, the original word was that FOX wasn't going to air the second half of the PB season until June, because they didn't have anywhere to air it, but when the viewers were outraged that they would have to wait that long, they quickly changed their tune and said it would be back in March. It was only recently that they announced when in March it would air, which leads me to believe that they didn't even know what timeslot they would put it in. They had to wait to see what show would be the most likely candidate for being pulled.

Edit: This was in response to a post that disappeared. I should have quoted it, but I figured it would be right above my post so there was no need.

Edit 2: I found the text of the quote in question in my e-mail so I added it above. Since the poster obviously deleted it for some reason, I left their name out of it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> Because people stop watching it. It is a matter of attrition. When people stop watching a show it ends up leaving the air sooner then it would have if people kept watching it. Surely my experience is anecdotal, but it is massive amount of anecdotal evidence, as I know way too many people who have bailed on Lost this season.
> 
> I like how people argue that because TV has done something stupid for a long time that is somehow the right way to do it. The reason why we had 39 week tv seasons, to begin with, is because most tv shows were 39 episodes. I am talking about what is better for the viewer. Clearly some people are arguing the position of what is better for the viewer. TV used to be in black and white too, that does not mean we should not want to watch it in color because it provides a more enjoyable experience.
> 
> I just don't get this idea that because tv has done this for a while that it is somehow the best way to present a show like Lost.


Like I said before, TV networks are all about making money. They don't care about the viewer, they care about the advertisers. I guarantee that if they thought "your way" would make them more money, they would jump on that. However, they have found an equilibrium between production costs and ad revenues and that is 22 episodes per season. I can speculate at the reasons for this, but it would just be guessing. But what I do know is that they have hard data that tells them that the current model is the most profitable. If this were not the case, they would not be operating this way.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> Like I said before, TV networks are all about making money. They don't care about the viewer, they care about the advertisers. I guarantee that if they thought "your way" would make them more money, they would jump on that. However, they have found an equilibrium between production costs and ad revenues and that is 22 episodes per season. I can speculate at the reasons for this, but it would just be guessing. But what I do know is that they have hard data that tells them that the current model is the most profitable. If this were not the case, they would not be operating this way.


If people would understand that the main purpose of television is NOT to entertain then maybe we'd get fewer of these silly threads.

But that would be fair and reasonable. It's much easier to complain.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TeeSee said:


> If people would understand that the main purpose of television is NOT to entertain...


Well, you're essentially right, I know what you mean, but the fact is that the better you entertain, the more eyeballs you bring for your advertisers, allowing you to make more money. So while the true customer is the advertisers, you have to give the viewer what they want to achieve your financial goals.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> If you recall, the original word was that FOX wasn't going to air the second half of the PB season until June, because they didn't have anywhere to air it, but when the viewers were outraged that they would have to wait that long, they quickly changed their tune and said it would be back in March.


That's an interesting interpretation of what happened. Rather, FOX realized that they could *make more profit* if they pulled the return of Prison Break into March, and push something else out to June.



> the better you entertain, the more eyeballs you bring for your advertisers, allowing you to make more money


Unremarkably, though, it isn't a linear function. First, lower costs for certain types of programming make them more profitable even with fewer eyeballs. Second, there are diminishing returns for each increase in quality. There comes a point where making the entertainment better simply has no significant impact on viewership. Even before that point, there is a range within which the cost of making entertainment better exceeds the value of doing so in terms of additional eyeballs.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

bicker said:


> Unremarkably, though, it isn't a linear function. First, lower costs for certain types of programming make them more profitable even with fewer eyeballs. Second, there are diminishing returns for each increase in quality. There comes a point where making the entertainment better simply has no significant impact on viewership. Even before that point, there is a range within which the cost of making entertainment better exceeds the value of doing so in terms of additional eyeballs.


I don't dispute the general concepts there. But I would say that applies to the large scale programming decisions. Like what to air, what to renew, etc. But within the creative team that actually is writing and producing the show, my impression is that they are doing all they can to have their entertainment value as high as possible. I may be naive, but I would think that the team that makes Lost isn't holding back on what they feel is entertaining because making it a little better doesn't provide enough return...but I guess that is a bit of a tangent to the original topic...repeats...which are good.


----------



## TeeSee (Jan 16, 2003)

bicker said:


> ...there is a range within which the cost of making entertainment better exceeds the value of doing so in terms of additional eyeballs.


Right, the entertainment value is secondary to profit. The producers of shows are even more upset than the fans at the way their shows are often handled. It's a business. The networks don't see their shows as art or anything of the kind. It's a tool to gain eyeballs. They use that tool to THEIR benefit, not to our or the shows' benefit, necessarily. Reality shows proliferate because of this. "Quality" shows like Lost are less abundant. Many top ten shows have been cancelled, many minor hits are routinely renewed. It's SO much more than what's good, right, critically acclaimed or even highly rated. The bottom line is the bottom line.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

> I don't dispute the general concepts there. But I would say that applies to the large scale programming decisions. Like what to air, what to renew, etc. But within the creative team that actually is writing and producing the show, my impression is that they are doing all they can to have their entertainment value as high as possible.


I can agree with that. Two completely different entities, networks and producers, have two completely different priorities.



> They use that tool to THEIR benefit


And they will continue to do so, and they SHOULD. That's what they're there for.

If people want a different model, then they're going to have to pay ($) for it, and people are simply not willing to, in large numbers. Television entertainment is simply not important enough to enough people.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

In the current podcast, Damon Lindeloff and Carlton Cuse address the question of reruns. It seems that they have been getting the question a lot, and they address scheduling and production in some detail.

The comments can be heard in the second segment of the podcast, after the interview with Executive Producer Bryan Burk.

http://abc.go.com/primetime/lost/podcasts/104992.html

Some points from their comments:


They work on Lost year-round, producing 24 episodes for a 36 week television season.
Once an episode is written, filming and all post production for a single episode takes 3 weeks to a month.
The network requires new episodes at specific times of the season: The beginning, and 3 sweeps periods which occur in November, February and May.
At the time this podcast is being recorded, the scripts for the final 3 hours (2 episodes) are being written. All 3 hours will be filmed at once with 3 different crews, and still, the episodes will be delivered "wet," that is, they will just barely get done before their deadline.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

arenateam said:


> yes please stop them


hi

what is this?


----------



## robinreale (Jan 24, 2006)

Next week's episode is also a new episode. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the next three weeks are new episodes before we get another repeat on the 12th.


----------



## Kevdog (Apr 18, 2001)

I don't think the issue is whether or not they have repeats, it's that the shows seem to air so randomly. Personally, I'd prefer it if they had fewer, longer breaks. But it is kinda silly to have a week or two break, one new episode, two or three weeks break, one new episode, etc., etc. I'm a HUGE fan of the show, but this is pretty annoying.


----------



## brott (Feb 23, 2001)

go DVD! no problem


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Heads up, Kevdog, new episode tomorrow. Everyone dies and the black smoke has to keep pushing the button every 108 minutes!

Greg


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

gchance said:


> Heads up, Kevdog, new episode tomorrow. Everyone dies and the black smoke has to keep pushing the button every 108 minutes!
> 
> Greg


Hell yeah, I also heard on the blog that if you pause any scene with the "smoke" you can clearly see the strings holding it up.
Screw Lost I have had it with quality entertainment  .


----------



## Kevdog (Apr 18, 2001)

gchance said:


> Heads up, Kevdog, new episode tomorrow. Everyone dies and the black smoke has to keep pushing the button every 108 minutes!
> 
> Greg


Damn. And here I was trying to do my part to keep them alive.

http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/games/lostwidget.html


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Kevdog said:


> Damn. And here I was trying to do my part to keep them alive.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/games/lostwidget.html


What happens if the timer reaches 0?

Greg


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

gchance said:


> What happens if the timer reaches 0?
> 
> Greg


Then ABC shows a LOST repeat


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I don't really care. My TiVo records it whenever it's on and then I watch it.


----------



## Z-Todd (Jun 11, 2005)

ABC should schedule Lost the way FOX schedules 24, but that would require too much brain power!

I agree with other posters that Lost has way too many ad breaks. But it is one of ABC's highest rated shows, so I can see why.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

ABC tried that schedule with Alias & NYPD Blue and didn't like the results.

Neither needed it as much as Lost. NYPD didn't need it at all, and while Alias is serialized, most of the episodes have self contained plots.

24's ratings have actually increased quite a bit in the last few years, and Lost's have gone down this year. Who knows, maybe ABC will try it.

Then we can have the threads complaining about no Lost until January.

-smak-


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Z-Todd said:


> ABC should schedule Lost the way FOX schedules 24, but that would require too much brain power!
> 
> I agree with other posters that Lost has way too many ad breaks. But it is one of ABC's highest rated shows, so I can see why.


Why would that require brain power? ABC simply chooses a different model. One which requires new episodes at the start of the fall season, and the 3 sweeps periods. They have tried it with a couple other shows in the past...if it worked better for them (translation:made more money) then they would do it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind breaking the season in 2 like the Sci-fi channel did with Battlestar Galactica. Two uninterrupted runs with a break in the middle. I need breaks to catch up with other shows. 

As for the ad breaks, add up the time. I think you will find that the amount of ad time per hour is the same as any other show.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Ad breaks?
Ad breaks?

That's what TiVo is for!

Although with the amount of commercials in most shows, it's a miracle if you get more than 40 minutes of content,


----------



## Z-Todd (Jun 11, 2005)

I would not complain if season #3 of Lost started in Jan 2007. I like the show but I'm not so invested in it that the wait would cause a hardship.

'24' tried both paths, late start and regular start. And the hard core fans did not like having to wait 2 or 3 weeks sometimes for a new ep.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

I for one am happy that there is something worth watching on TV once a week. Lost is good enough to set a timer on a VCR for.


----------



## Tivortex (Feb 29, 2004)

What is this "VCR" you speak of ???


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

The problem with the reruns is showing in the ratings for Lost this season. This is just a quick post I made on another site showing how the reruns have affected Lost in the ratings and viewership numbers.

The numbers of viewers have dropped from the high of Ep 1 of season 2 of 23,469,000 viewers, to 16,432,000 viewers for Epsidoe 15. Thats a huge drop in viewers, and less viewers means less $$$ for ABC.

Some noticing trends in it

Episode 01: Man of Science, Man of Faith
Original US Airdate: 21 September 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 13.8
Total Viewers: 23,469,000

Episode 02: Adrift
Original US Airdate: 28 September 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 13.7
Total Viewers: 23,166,000

Episode 03: Orientation
Original US Airdate: 05 October 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 13.1
Total Viewers: 22,377,000

Episode 04: Everbody Hates Hugo
Original US Airdate: 12 October 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 12.8
Total Viewers: 21,665,000

Episode 05: ...and Found
Original US Airdate: 19 October 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 12.7
Total Viewers: 21,381,000

Episode 06: Abandoned
Original US Airdate: 09 November 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 12.0
Total Viewers: 20,012,000 (notice the drop of 1,369,000 viewers after the first set of reruns?)

Episode 07: The Other 48 Days
Original US Airdate: 16 November 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 12.7
Total Viewers: 21,868,000(they brought back the viewers they lost this week, and actually gained 400,000+)

Episode 08: Collision
Original US Airdate: 23 November 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 10.8
Total Viewers: 19,293,000(they lost the viewers that came back, plus additional viewers)

Episode 09: What Kate Did
Original US Airdate: 30 November 2005
Final Ratings/Share: 12.3
Total Viewers: 21,541,000 (here they actually gained back the viewers that were lost the previous week, and almost got back to the level they were at two weeks prior)

Episode 10: The 23rd Psalm
Original US Airdate: 11 January 2006
Final Ratings/Share: 11.9
Total Viewers: 20,557,000(notice the loss of 984,000 viewers after the reruns)

Episode 11: The Hunting Party
Original US Airdate: 18 January 2006
Final Ratings/Share: 11.3
Total Viewers: 19,126,000(notice they lost 1,431,000 viewers even after the new ep the previous week)

Episode 12: Fire + Water
Original US Airdate: 25 January 2006
Overnight Ratings/Share: 11.2
Total Viewers: approx. 19.05 million viewers(another small loss of viewers, even after 2 new eps)

Episode 13: The Long Con
Original US Airdate: 08 February 2006
Final Ratings/Share: 11.2
Total Viewers: 18,737,000(lost 300,000+ viewers after the 1 week rerun, so far they have lost 4,732,000 viewers so far this season up to this point, a 2.6 rating drop as well, which translates to lots of $$$ lost for ABC as well)

Episode 14: One of Them
Original US Airdate: 15 February 2006
Final Ratings/Share: 10.8
Total Viewers: 18,199,000(another loss of 538,000 viewers after a new ep aired previously)

Episode 15: Maternity Leave
Original US Airdate: 01 March 2006
Final Ratings/Share: 9.9
Total Viewers: 16,432,000(another loss of 1,767,000 viewers after reruns)

So far this season, Lost has lost 7,037,000 viewers so far, and has lost 3.9 ratings points. Why should this concern people? Because the ratings # determines the ad rates, and right now, the new episodes are not bringing in the fans that have left from previous breaks in the story line at all. Less viewers = less $$$ come May sweeps if people do not tune in for sweeps.

I doubt that ABC is concerned right now, but if this downward slide continues, it could become worried considering that Maternity Leave's ratings would only have placed it 13th for the week, and the top money for ads go to the top 5 shows, and the amount of difference is staggering. 

Time will tell if the viewers that have left come back next week when they are going to air 3 new eps in a row. It will be interesting to see what the numbers say after the 3rd new ep just prior to the next rerun segment.

And keep i mind, they are airing 3 new eps then going to repeats again. So Eps 16, 17, 18 are next up, then repeats again, then probably 19,20,21 then repeats, then eps 22,23,and the 2 hour finale. So there are two more reruns periods still to come, all because ABC wants to keep the show on during all 3 sweeps periods, which is actually hurting the show more than helping, by those stats I posted above.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Okay, I love LOST, but I still can't understand the reruns of Season One. If they feel they have to run episodes we have seen already, why not make them episodes from season two? The season we are in? 
What happens in season three? Do we see reruns for one again or maybe some from season two and one? Or just season two? .
I just want to watch LOST! 
I have my tivo set for NEW episodes and that is it. On rerun Wednesday nights, I watch some Columbo or catch up on my Early Edition eps.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mike3775 said:


> The problem with the reruns is showing in the ratings for Lost this season. This is just a quick post I made on another site showing how the reruns have affected Lost in the ratings and viewership numbers.


I don't know how you can conclude with certainty that reruns are the cause for any of that. I don't see the correlation. The analysis is incomplete without examining what it's competing against, as well as any other possible factors.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Precisely, and the analysis is further undercut by the fact that there is no comparison to how much it would have cost to produce 39 episodes. I bet that would have made all of ABC's programming decisions look GOLDEN.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

bicker said:


> Precisely, and the analysis is further undercut by the fact that there is no comparison to how much it would have cost to produce 39 episodes.


I don't think anyone is advocating 39 episodes (well, we can wish!). I think it is the off-on nature of the showings that has some upset.

I think one of the real debates in the next couple of years among TV execs will be using the "old" model (LOST or most other shows) versus the "new" model (24 or A Idol). Do you spread 24 shows over 39 weeks, or run them in one straight batch, or even two batches?

I think shows that have an ongoing drama component like LOST or Prison Break (or even Sopranos) work better when shown contiguously. Shows that are more episodic (Medium, CSI) probably don't matter, and may even be enhanced by being spread out over the entire 39 week season.

MHO. There is no easy answer.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

What they need to do is start having ad rates based on long-term ratings, not just sweeps. That would free the networks from having to have new episodes of all their big shows during those three months, and be a little more creative in their scheduling.

There would still be the summer/Christmas dead zones, but that's a lot easier to work around.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What they need to do is start having ad rates based on long-term ratings, not just sweeps. That would free the networks from having to have new episodes of all their big shows during those three months, and be a little more creative in their scheduling.


But then when would all the shows schedule their "Very Special" episodes and their guest stars? 

I totally agree with you. I've never understood why the system works like it does and it seems to me that the advertisers wouldn't continue to put up with it. The networks are basically telling the advertisers, "Hey, here is the number of viewers we're able to draw when we pull out all the stops and market our shows relentlessly. We want you to pay for this level of viewership, even though we both know that the rest of the year we're not going to try that hard and we won't have that many viewers."


----------



## kramerboy (Jul 13, 2001)

mike3775 said:


> The problem with the reruns is showing in the ratings for Lost this season. This is just a quick post I made on another site showing how the reruns have affected Lost in the ratings and viewership numbers.
> 
> The numbers of viewers have dropped from the high of Ep 1 of season 2 of 23,469,000 viewers, to 16,432,000 viewers for Epsidoe 15. Thats a huge drop in viewers, and less viewers means less $$$ for ABC.


I don't think it has to do that much with the repeats. Some of it, sure. But I think the ratings drop in January, February and March has *more* to do with going head to head with American Idol in that time slot.

Just my two cents.....


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

kramerboy said:


> I don't think it has to do that much with the repeats. Some of it, sure. But I think the ratings drop in January, February and March has *more* to do with going head to head with American Idol in that time slot.
> 
> Just my two cents.....


Bingo. That's what I was insinuating before...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

kramerboy said:


> I don't think it has to do that much with the repeats. Some of it, sure. But I think the ratings drop in January, February and March has *more* to do with going head to head with American Idol in that time slot.
> 
> Just my two cents.....


Not only that, but we've seen several people on this board say that they're not watching anymore simply because the show is frustrating for those that want the answer to the mystery NOW. So between AI and those simply not willing to put in the time to follow the story, that is probably more of a factor in the ratings drop than the reruns.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

devdogaz said:


> Not only that, but we've seen several people on this board say that they're not watching anymore simply because the show is frustrating for those that want the answer to the mystery NOW. So between AI and those simply not willing to put in the time to follow the story, that is probably more of a factor in the ratings drop than the reruns.


True. Plus, I'd like to see the ratings trends for _all _ network shows. I don't know, but I would guess that it is common to start out strong and drop a little as time goes by, even without the American Idol juggernaut to compete with. (And it is a small drop, by the way.) Especially for a show returning that has a lot of buzz and anticipation. I'll bet a lot of people gave it a try that weren't watching last year, and some of those have fallen off as well.


----------



## bacevedo (Oct 31, 2003)

I think one of the ways it is hurting them is that they don't do a good job of letting viewers know when the show is coming back. They just say, "Coming, on Lost" with no indication as to when. 

If I am the average viewer without a Tivo, how do I know when it is coming back on? Am I supposed to just come and sit down every week and see if it is a new episode? I bet people see the re-run and stop watching it that night. Then the next week they see another re-run and say forget it and don't tune in again. By the time a new episode airs, they have either lost interest or just plain forgotten that it was on. 

I like it when the shows say in the previews when it is coming like "In 3 weeks, see what's coming on Lost". That way, you know when to come back and don't have to guess or (gasp) look in a TV Guide. 

Bryan


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I believe that is exactly what Lost did three weeks ago.


----------



## mike3775 (Jan 3, 2003)

So if it doesnt have to do with reruns, why did last nights show only get a 9.6, which is lower than the last new episode?

Sure it may have come in second for its timeslot, but its still a ratings drop yet again.

The reruns are hurting the show more than helping it at this point. ABC needs to not try to run it through all 3 sweeps periods, because the reruns are not helping its ratings right now.

I'm sorry but ratings drop continually after reruns is a telling sign that fans are not paying attention to the show when it comes back from repeats.

They may bring back some viewers next week, but they are still below what they started the season with, and thats not good for ABC.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mike3775 said:


> The reruns are hurting the show more than helping it at this point. ABC needs to not try to run it through all 3 sweeps periods, because the reruns are not helping its ratings right now.


Nobody said that reruns help. My position is that they have little effect.

If someone could point me to a source of archived Neilsen data, I wouldn't mind doing a little of my own research...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The Neilsen data still wouldn't show anything, either way, because it doesn't show the costs side of the equation.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

bicker said:


> The Neilsen data still wouldn't show anything, either way, because it doesn't show the costs side of the equation.


That's not the point though. He is saying that there is a ratings slide that is attributable to the reruns, and using the ratings correlation as evidence. I'm not on board with that theory, and wouldn't mind having the data to check out a few things...


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The reruns could hurt, it's hard to tell. But what would hurt ABC's bottomline more is having to pay to produce a show to air from September - January Lost timeslot in order to start airing Lost in January.

Lost is one of ABC's biggest shows. I'm not sure who has the cajones to go to the bigwigs at ABC and tell them that lost won't be airing season 3 until January 2007.

24 almost has to do it, each show ends with like 5 cliffhangers. 

-smak-


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

This is a quote from Damon Lindelof posted by Kristin Veitch in her weekly chat on E! Online. If the producers get their way it way give some of you relief:



> From verbella: What did Damon say about the rerun quandary? I am so sick of all the reruns this season.
> "There's 36 weeks in a TV season and we have 24 episodes," D.L. tells me. "But we're lobbying ABC for when the show is on, it's on, and when it's off, it's off. *So, we want to air it in three acts next year. You know, blocks of seven, seven and eight. But in order to do that, we have to roll the show out in October instead of September, and hopefully that will work out."*Sounds pretty good, if you ask me. But as I said, in the meantime, let's remember these guys are busting their buttocks to give you one of the trickiest shows to put together on television. Honestly!.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Yeah, I can picture it now. The first 7 will air, and two weeks later, people will be posting, "Why are there so many reruns with Lost?!?! I'm losing interest as a result, this show sucks!"

You can't please some people.

Greg


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I know every year people complain about The Shield, which runs its episodes straight through and then has about ten months between seasons.

Then again, those complainers are nowhere near as passionate in their whining as the Lost complainers!


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

gchance said:


> Yeah, I can picture it now. The first 7 will air, and two weeks later, people will be posting, "Why are there so many reruns with Lost?!?! I'm losing interest as a result, this show sucks!"
> 
> You can't please some people.
> 
> Greg


Are you kidding?
September would roll around and people would be complaining that Lost hasn't started.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

gchance said:


> Yeah, I can picture it now. The first 7 will air, and two weeks later, people will be posting, "Why are there so many reruns with Lost?!?! I'm losing interest as a result, this show sucks!"
> 
> You can't please some people.
> 
> Greg


Actually people are much more amiable if they understand and know what is going on... Just randomly airing and not airing shows is not conducive to a good following.

I was just talking to someone yesterday and they have given up because they got to frustrated trying to determine what episodes they have seen and not seen.

Still don't get the defenders of this, like this is some genius path ABC and the Lost producers have undertaken and the rest of us don't get it. It is bad business. Their plan for next year sounds feasible. Although this nonsense about the television season being 36 weeks wrong is so ridiculous. No wonder they can't effectively program the show. There are all kinds of shows that do not run 36 weeks these days. I suspect that we are close to a majority of shows on network television right now that don't air for 36 weeks. So I think that is a lame excuse.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Agree with several of you above, plus another thought:

Who says the TV season is 36 weeks? Maybe to mainstream TV it is, but I live in a world that has 52 weeks. I was at a dinner last night, and TV came up. Turns out there were some Deadwood fans in my group, and there was also an Entourage fan. (I love both of these shows.) Both of which are kicking off season three this summer. Did anyone even comment on the fact the seasons are starting in June, which according to TV people is not even a season? Nope, it seemed as natural as anything else HBO pulls on us  .

Now I will agree that HBO ain't mainstream TV, but my point is, people are paying less & less attention to "official" seasons. If you like a show, you watch it. That's the bottom line.

Personally, I give high kudos to Damon Lindelof for proposing a 7-8-8 season. I think it would be *highly* successful. As someone above stated, it's not the repeats that bug me, it's the inconsistency of new shows vs repeats that drives many of us batty.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I'm hesitant to post in this thread, because I'm just now watching Season One on DVD (I've seen 12 episodes, and Disc 4 arrives in my mailbox today from Netflix), and don't want any spoilers. But, I'm interested in the subject matter, so here goes.

Does this "three Acts" thing mean that, when the show is "not on," they will show reruns? Or will they show something else in that timeslot?

It sounds like what they've been doing with The West Wing for the past two years. The difference is that NBC did it because West Wing reruns didn't get ratings, so, during weeks when a new West Wing wasn't on, they showed something else entirely, usually a Law and Order rerun, though sometimes a miniseries, or the Olympics this past break. Once they decided they weren't going to show reruns anymore, it made sense to present the show in blocks so its viewers would know when it's on. 

It looks like Lost reruns get ratings. When they stop getting ratings, ABC will have to do something about it. Until then, the reruns are essentially free programming for ABC to air that gets ratings. It's hard for them to give that up if it's not costing them ad money.

One thing about 24 is that even when it aired over the full season, it took breaks. It never, ever, aired reruns. That would confuse the heck out of people.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

One of the spoiler sites said abc/the producers of Lost are considering running the show in 3 seperate blocks of 7 or 8 shows shown in consecutive weeks. The biggest negative is the show wouldn't start until October if they go this route.

Many of the syndicated series like Stargate and Monk have "split" seasons.

I see someone already posted this.

The show is "scheduled" to go for 6 seasons. This will never happen but I'd rather they film extra episodes and run the series over 5 years.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Agree with several of you above, plus another thought:
> 
> Who says the TV season is 36 weeks? Maybe to mainstream TV it is, but I live in a world that has 52 weeks. I was at a dinner last night, and TV came up. Turns out there were some Deadwood fans in my group, and there was also an Entourage fan. (I love both of these shows.) Both of which are kicking off season three this summer. Did anyone even comment on the fact the seasons are starting in June, which according to TV people is not even a season? Nope, it seemed as natural as anything else HBO pulls on us  .
> 
> ...


There were some articles written, I can't recall where, that said that the networks are starting to consider the traditional Sept-May season obsolete. I think with more and more people having the ability to watch TV anytime and anywhere, the summer months just might not be as slow as before. I think I like the short 7 week season, as long as it's consecutive, then before the next 7 week segment, they reshow the last episode of the previous season to refresh your memory.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> There were some articles written, I can't recall where, that said that the networks are starting to consider the traditional Sept-May season obsolete. I think with more and more people having the ability to watch TV anytime and anywhere, the summer months just might not be as slow as before. I think I like the short 7 week season, as long as it's consecutive, then before the next 7 week segment, they reshow the last episode of the previous season to refresh your memory.


Well someone better tell advertisers not to base ad rates on Nielsen ratings.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

First off, let me say I love Lost. Having said that, I'll get to mypoint.

Lost fanboys are getting out of hand.

Most shows have reruns. Deal with it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mwhip said:


> Well someone better tell advertisers not to base ad rates on Nielsen ratings.


In my opinion, that's another thing that is broken, and the nets better wise up. Too much time shifting going on to really base ratings on who watched what show at the time it was shown. And it's going to get worse. Plus, I still think the sample is too small now based on the amount of choices the average view has these days. And the fact that many of us switch channels during ads anyway.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

marksman said:


> Actually people are much more amiable if they understand and know what is going on... Just randomly airing and not airing shows is not conducive to a good following.
> 
> I was just talking to someone yesterday and they have given up because they got to frustrated trying to determine what episodes they have seen and not seen.
> 
> Still don't get the defenders of this, like this is some genius path ABC and the Lost producers have undertaken and the rest of us don't get it. It is bad business. Their plan for next year sounds feasible. Although this nonsense about the television season being 36 weeks wrong is so ridiculous. No wonder they can't effectively program the show. There are all kinds of shows that do not run 36 weeks these days. I suspect that we are close to a majority of shows on network television right now that don't air for 36 weeks. So I think that is a lame excuse.


I've said it before...

ABC would not be airing the show this way if they thought they could make more money by doing it differently. It's all about the money and I promise you they would not leave money on the table if they thought they could make more by airing it differently.

The traditional TV season may be losing a little of its clout, but that doesn't change the fact that a network is not about to put one of its big-time shows on in the summer. It also doesn't mean that it's profitable to do a 22-episode show starting in January and make a second 14-episode show to run in the fall. As timeshifting and other technologies begin to change the TV landscape, we can all hope that the networks will stop clinging to the traditional TV season and the Sweeps periods that currently drive the ad rates. If this happens, we may see more of what some of you are clamoring for. However, in the meantime, just remember that the networks are all about generating revenue and they're doing so the best way they know how. It might not be in harmony with your ideas about watching a TV show, but that is a secondary concern to network execs.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DougF said:


> First off, let me say I love Lost. Having said that, I'll get to mypoint.
> Lost fanboys are getting out of hand.
> Most shows have reruns. Deal with it.


Deal with it? Yeah, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Tell that to GM, US Steel, and all the companies left in the dust of Wal*Mart 

This has nothing to do with LOST. This has everything to do with the changing habits of TV watchers. Compare HBO's market share today with their share ten years ago.

If the major networks continue as is, they will be the dinosaurs of the 21st century. Fox appears to be more innovative than the others with 24 and Prison Break (even if PB was unintentional). The majors also tend to fall into traps like Deal or No Deal; hey it's popular, let's put it on every day (remember Millionaire?)

Change or die (credit Darwin for this one)


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

astrohip said:


> Deal with it? Yeah, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Tell that to GM, US Steel, and all the companies left in the dust of Wal*Mart
> 
> This has nothing to do with LOST. This has everything to do with the changing habits of TV watchers. Compare HBO's market share today with their share ten years ago.
> 
> ...


Sure, the TV industry is going to have to change. I think we're already seeing that with episodes available to purchase from iTunes. Other changes are sure to follow.

That's not what I got out of reading this thread, though. What I got was that a bunch of fanboys can't stand to wait a couple of weeks between episodes and will say anything to make their case. <shrug>


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

marksman said:


> So I think that is a lame excuse.


I suspect the networks think that yours is a lame complaint.


----------



## ovr8ted (Feb 27, 2005)

Luckily for me I have a memory like memento.  

"So I'm chasing this guy, , , "



I'm just happy that some TV exec can divide my year into 22 or 36 weeks for me, that whole 52 thing was soooo yesterday.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DougF said:


> That's not what I got out of reading this thread, though. What I got was that a bunch of fanboys can't stand to wait a couple of weeks between episodes and will say anything to make their case. <shrug>


It probably was, 400 off-topic posts ago 

But why the heck can't they add a FSI . . .


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Season 2 has been a bit of a let down. Unless interesting stuff starts happening soon, Lost might become nothing but reruns. Too much of the show's background information is found on various websites.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

marksman said:


> Still don't get the defenders of this, like this is some genius path ABC and the Lost producers have undertaken and the rest of us don't get it.


ABC dictates the schedule. The Lost producers are just hitting their deadlines.



marksman said:


> It is bad business. Their plan for next year sounds feasible. Although this nonsense about the television season being 36 weeks wrong is so ridiculous. No wonder they can't effectively program the show.


You don't have to be a "defender" to believe that the scheduling is not having an appreciable effect. If the show is good, people watch.



marksman said:


> There are all kinds of shows that do not run 36 weeks these days. I suspect that we are close to a majority of shows on network television right now that don't air for 36 weeks. So I think that is a lame excuse.


Can you give a few examples of weekly network TV series that do not air over a 36 week schedule? Or at least within a week or 2 of that? I can't think of any besides 24 offhand.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Network television is not on a 52 week schedule. Comparing network shows to Monk or The Shield or Galactica has no basis.

Does anybody think if any kind of research ABC has done showed the slightest interest by the viewer in airing shows in a non September-May season they wouldn't do it?

It's true that ABC does it this way because they make more money.

Who's going to pay for the show that airs Wednesday at 9 from September-January leaving Lost free to air non-stop in January?

Not only is ABC going to have to pay for that extra show, who's to believe that it would get better ratings than Lost reruns do now? 

They'd lose millions, who's going to suggest that?

I don't know what people have been reading or whether they're confused, but I don't think there is one scripted network show that aired during this season that will air ANY new episodes in June-August.

And there is only 1 scripted show that purposely doesn't air in a 36 week schedule, and that's 24. 

-smak-


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

smak said:


> I don't know what people have been reading or whether they're confused, but I don't think there is one scripted network show that aired during this season that will air ANY new episodes in June-August.


Maybe the ratings behemoth "Joey"?!


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Also, just yesterday I read about the return of two network shows. "Commander in Chief" and "Gilmore Girls".

CIC has not aired a new episode since Jan.
GG has not aired a new episode since Feb.

And yet it's "Lost" that's has this unique habit of running reruns and taking weeks off?


----------



## eugene82 (Mar 31, 2006)

Fish Man said:


> Thanks again, devdogaz, for the reality check.
> 
> And, speedcouch, don't you think it's a little harsh to say of people who simply accept how _essentially all episodic television has always worked:_ "I guess most people here ARE the sheep they treat the viewers like."?
> 
> ...


Then tell me why people where I work praise 24 and complain only about lost which shows 20 minutes of an ep from last season while only writing in a new 22 minutes in this seasons eps? SHEESH.
The program is a shame from the point of how its shown. And I'll predict that next year will be its last season unless they really pick up and do some creative writing this season instead of using 20 minutes from a last season ep. All of season 1 has practically been aired this season. Like someone else said, "let the network by and they will do the same next season".
It looks as if it was a waste of money for me to purchase season 1. I could have recorded it on DVD in my home every Wednesday night.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

eugene82 said:


> Then tell me why people where I work praise 24 and complain only about lost which shows 20 minutes of an ep from last season while only writing in a new 22 minutes in this seasons eps? SHEESH.
> The program is a shame from the point of how its shown. And I'll predict that next year will be its last season unless they really pick up and do some creative writing this season instead of using 20 minutes from a last season ep. All of season 1 has practically been aired this season. Like someone else said, "let the network by and they will do the same next season".
> It looks as if it was a waste of money for me to purchase season 1. I could have recorded it on DVD in my home every Wednesday night.


 Wha??? Huh??

Can you give even one example of season two eps airing footage or even storylines from season one episodes?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> Wha??? Huh??
> 
> Can you give even one example of season two eps airing footage or even storylines from season one episodes?


I would politely request that, if you answer this post, you put it in spoiler tags.

Thanks.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

eugene82 said:


> Then tell me why people where I work praise 24 and complain only about lost which shows 20 minutes of an ep from last season while only writing in a new 22 minutes in this seasons eps? SHEESH.
> The program is a shame from the point of how its shown. And I'll predict that next year will be its last season unless they really pick up and do some creative writing this season instead of using 20 minutes from a last season ep. All of season 1 has practically been aired this season. Like someone else said, "let the network by and they will do the same next season".
> It looks as if it was a waste of money for me to purchase season 1. I could have recorded it on DVD in my home every Wednesday night.


Step away from the 'shrooms and join us in the real world now...


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

eugene82 said:


> And I'll predict that next year will be its last season


And I predict you will be absolutely incorrect. No question.

If you don't like it, don't watch.

But, with or without you, LOST is one of the most well written shows on television right now and it gets tremendous ratings and makes a ton of money for ABC. There's almost zero danger of it not making it to season 4.


----------

