# Chuck renewal decision expected this Monday



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/05/zachary-levi-on.html

From Zachary Levi's lips to God's Jeff Zucker's ears
Chuck's leading man says he's feeling optimistic that NBC will renew his spy comedy for a third season. "I think the chances are good that we'll come back," he said at last night's Star Trek premiere. "But television is in a weird, fickle place right now, so you never know. We're supposed to find out on Monday."
That's an eternity for Chuck's rabid, Subway-munching fans, many of who have been taking part in the various grassroots campaigns that have sprouted up to save the show. "It feels awesome to know we have dedicated fans," says Levi. "People were sending the network nerds -- candy ones, not human ones as that would have cost a lot more postage and there are probably some legal issues with mailing a human. They were also going out and buying Subway foot-longs because they are one of our main advertisers.
"I hope we get another season," he elaborates. "I love being Chuck and I love the people I work. And the season finale was not meant to be the end of the series. It did not wrap it all up with a bow. They did not write it to be the end, so it would be unsatisfying to leave it there."
Speaking of which, assuming NBC does the right thing and keeps Chuck going, what would next season look like? "Chuck now has the new version of the Intersect in his head and not only does that one allow him to flash on information, it also allows him to get physical powers and techniques," he explains. "Like he might need kung fu for an assignment and then he uses it and it goes away. The powers are fleeting. That would be the third season."
For 'round the clock updates on Chuck's fate -- and the fate of all your favorite bubble shows -- bookmark my Fall TV Cheat Sheet. For immediate reports, get with the program and start following me on Twitter. In the meantime, head to the comments section and tell NBC how hurt you'll be if they cancel Chuck. (Reporting by Carrie Bell)


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

PLEASE Re-new this NBC! PLLLLLLLLEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSEEEE!


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Kamakzie said:


> PLEASE Re-new this NBC! PLLLLLLLLEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSEEEE!


I second that.

PLEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Let me add my voice to this chorus:

PUUUUUUUUUUH-LEEEEEEEEEEZ!


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.


----------



## unicorngoddess (Nov 20, 2005)

I must've missed the memo to send our Nerds..but that's a great idea!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I can't imagine a network office that smells like old Subway sandwiches that have been through the mail would be a good place to find fond feelings about the show that is responsible...


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Family said:


> You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.


They can cancel that and Heroes for all I care-as long as Chuck sticks around.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

spikedavis said:


> They can cancel that and Heroes for all I care-as long as Chuck sticks around.


This! Hell, they can cancel everything else on the NBC schedule as long as they keep Chuck, the Thursday night comedies, and Friday Night Lights.


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

Not only will we find out Chuck's fate but that of everything else. All the networks are unveiling their schedules next week, each on a different day. NBC just happens to go first. This could easily have read "Find out Chuck's fate on Wednesday!"

That said I hope they keep Chuck around for another season and I thought I had read that Directv/NBC came to an agreement to renew FNL for another two years?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ewolfr said:


> Not only will we find out Chuck's fate but that of everything else. All the networks are unveiling their schedules next week, each on a different day. NBC just happens to go first. This could easily have read "Find out Chuck's fate on Wednesday!"


Not true. NBC is having their Upfront presentation about two weeks before everyone else. The other networks are the week of May 18.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

spikedavis said:


> "I hope we get another season," he elaborates. "I love being Chuck and I love the people I work.


i'm assuming that's suppossed to read "the people i work *with*"

yeah, zach... i bet you do *cough* sarah *cough cough*

season 3 would mean more bedroom scenes with yvonne....

gawd i wish i could act.....


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

Family said:


> You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.


Medium is still on the air???  Hey, we found our time slot for Chuck! I thought Jennifer Love Hewitt was leaving that show.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Here more info...look hopeful......

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/05/upfront-buzz-community-building-hope-for-chuck-at-nbc.html

But, (and you know their a but coming) prepare yourself for a letdown. 

NBC is only about 72 hours away from unveiling its 2009-10 shows to the world, and the usual advance buzz is swirling as to which newbies -- and which on-the-fence current series -- will make the cut.

The showbiz trades are in agreement that one fairly sure bet is "Community," a comedy starring Joel McHale and Chevy Chase that's set at a community college. The show, created by "Sarah Silverman Program" veteran Dan Harmon, has received positive coverage throughout its development process, and the trades report that it did well at a screening for network executives earlier this week.

Another comedy, "100 Questions for Charlotte Payne," has also reportedly won some fans. It centers on a young woman (British actress Sophie Winkleman) who's trying to navigate life in New York; each episode is framed by one of the titular questions.

Things are a little murkier on the drama side, not least because Nora O'Brien, the network's vice president for drama development, died suddenly Wednesday night after collapsing on the set of the pilot "Parenthood," which is filming in Northern California. That show, starring Peter Krause, Maura Tierney and Erika Christensen, is one of the surer bets for the network.

The only other dramas that have screened so far are David E. Kelley's "Legally Mad" and Dick Wolf's "Lost & Found," and the trades say neither one set the room on fire. "Legally Mad" does, however, carry a significant penalty if NBC decides not to pick it up. Screenings for several other shows, including the dramas "Mercy," "Trauma" and "Day One" and the comedy "Off Duty," were scheduled for Friday.

Among the shows already on the schedule, "Chuck" is probably the most closely watched. Variety says "signs are pointing to" a third season for the action-comedy, while The Hollywood Reporter will only go so far as to say its chances "have improved slightly." Late-season entrants "Southland" and "Parks and Recreation" are also seen as pretty safe.

NBC's "infront" presentation is scheduled for Monday afternoon in New York.


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

I just started watching it(on S02E11). Please............renew.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Enrique said:


> I just started watching it(on S02E11). Please............renew.


And it just keeps getting better. The last 2 episodes of season 2 were phenomenal!


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Michael Ausiello from TV Guide just tweeted that the decision on Chuck may NOT be announced on Monday as previously stated. AUGH!


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Family said:


> You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.


+1 :up:


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> Michael Ausiello from TV Guide just tweeted that the decision on Chuck may NOT be announced on Monday as previously stated. AUGH!


Just FYI, Ausiello hasn't been with TV Guide for a while now. He moved over to Entertainment Weekly.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Family said:


> You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.





spikedavis said:


> They can cancel that and Heroes for all I care-as long as Chuck sticks around.


Did Heroes do all that much better than Chuck in the ratings? I can't understand why they're keeping that around, what with all of the turmoil and firings behind the scenes. And it was a pretty crappy season, aside from one or two pretty good episodes.

Medium I have no special feelings about either. But I'd rather see Heroes cancelled than that. And Medium cancelled instead of Chuck. (Selfishly, because I don't watch Medium).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> Did Heroes do all that much better than Chuck in the ratings? I can't understand why they're keeping that around, what with all of the turmoil and firings behind the scenes.


I think that might be part of the reason. NBC just hired back a very high-profile producer, who is credited with making Heroes a water-cooler show in the first season, to a two-year exclusive contract. Why spend all that money and good-will on a guy and then piss him off by yanking his show out from under him before he has a realistic chance of turning it around?

They're hoping Heroes can be what it once was, and what (unfortunately) Chuck never has been... a cool hit show. And they're hoping Fuller can do it, since he gets a lot of the credit for the show's initial success.

Which, to me, is a fairly typical example of how Hollywood often gets things wrong, trying to recreate past successes instead of creating future successes. "Hey, this show was a hit when Fuller was producing! Let's get Fuller back, and it will be a hit again!" Let's hope they're right, and I'm certainly willing and eager to give him a chance, but how often does that approach work?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Looking forward to Legally Mad.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> Did Heroes do all that much better than Chuck in the ratings? I can't understand why they're keeping that around, what with all of the turmoil and firings behind the scenes. And it was a pretty crappy season, aside from one or two pretty good episodes.
> 
> Medium I have no special feelings about either. But I'd rather see Heroes cancelled than that. And Medium cancelled instead of Chuck. (Selfishly, because I don't watch Medium).


Heroes and Chuck ended with approximately the same ratings, but Heroes has been bleeding viewers all season while Chuck's ratings have remained pretty constant.

I think even an NBC executive can see which show would make a better pickup (especially given that Heroes probably costs more to produce).

I'd rather they cancelled Heroes and keep Chuck and Medium, I stopped watching the first 2 but would be willing to pick Chuck back up next season depending on what's renewed/cancelled and my schedule next year (35 hours a week as an evening bartender is not conducive to watching oodles of TV series).


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Just FYI, Ausiello hasn't been with TV Guide for a while now. He moved over to Entertainment Weekly.


Right. I knew that. I read his stuff online at ew.com all the time. But he's stuck in my head as a TV Guide columnist. Just like Sarah Lancaster is still stuck in my head as the hot babysitter on _Everwood._


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

Family said:


> You folks can have Chuck as long as it's not at Medium's expense.


No, let Medium move to a more appropriate channel like Lifetime or Oprah.


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

Magister said:


> No, let Medium move to a more appropriate channel like Lifetime or Oprah.


Huh? Under that logic maybe Chuck and Heroes should move to SciFi, sorry SyFy. You know, where they'll get the respect they deserve from executives and the kind of exposure that... Oh never mind.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

pkscout said:


> Huh? Under that logic maybe Chuck and Heroes should move to SciFi, sorry SyFy. You know, where they'll get the respect they deserve from executives and the kind of exposure that... Oh never mind.


Can't we just keep all our favorite shows and just cancel Leno's new show before it starts?  Or have it as a summer only show.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

My suspicion is that the alternative to Leno at 10PM is NBC giving that hour back to the affiliates to fill themselves.


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Bring back Chuck. That is all!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

pkscout said:


> Huh? Under that logic maybe Chuck and Heroes should move to SciFi, sorry SyFy.


I actually think both Chuck and Heroes would fit in better on USA than SciFi.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I like the sound of the pilot slate.

I say cancel everything NBC and start over.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I actually think both Chuck and Heroes would fit in better on USA than SciFi.


Would not change anything, Universal Media owns both USA and SyFly, which also owns NBC.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

marksman said:


> I like the sound of the pilot slate.
> 
> I say cancel everything NBC and start over.


You DO enjoy thread crapping in the threads on Chuck, don't you?


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> You DO enjoy thread crapping in the threads on Chuck, don't you?


I don't know. Why do people who post about NBC renewal talk choose to only want to talk about Chuck?

Other shows are relevant since in almost every case the stories and rumors discussed involve a lot of different shows.

Like this one, for example.

The article extensively talked about a lot of the new shows NBC was working on, much more so then it talked about Chuck, and I chose to comment on that part of the article mentioned.

You don't automatically get to make every thread solely about Chuck by putting the word in the subject line. Especially when the content, discussion and source material cover a much broader area.

I personally didn't say anything about Chuck in my comments. In fact I doubt I have mentioned Chuck much at all if ever in my life.

I would just think it would not be a bad move for NBC to start over. This includes removing shows that I watch and like.

Your comment was that they should move Chuck to some cable network. Sounds like you are thread crapping more. Not to mention you took time out of your busy schedule to specifically address my comment.

It would be one thing if these were discussions about the actual show Chuck and what is going on and i came in and said Chuck sucks kill it. Instead they are discussions about what NBC is going to do, and it is reasonable for people who have differing opinions to contribute as well. It is not reasonable to assume in a thread like this that only people who should respond are people who want Chuck to stay on the air.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Even though I would love to see Chuck renewed, you're absolutely correct.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

marksman said:


> I like the sound of the pilot slate.


Really? It seems a lot more of the same to me. Doctors, cops, & lawyers.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

bicker said:


> Even though I would love to see Chuck renewed, you're absolutely correct.


Wow. There's a credible endorsement.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

NBC should just give up. Fold. Have a garage sale and go home.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> This! Hell, they can cancel everything else on the NBC schedule as long as they keep Chuck, the Thursday night comedies, and Friday Night Lights.


...what he said....


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. There's a credible endorsement.


Why are you opposed to free speech?


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

Kamakzie said:


> Can't we just keep all our favorite shows and just cancel Leno's new show before it starts?  Or have it as a summer only show.


Then you might as well take the network behind the wood shield and put a bullet in it's brain. IMHO, Jay is the one keeping this network alive.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

According to Nikke Finke, Chuck will be back.

Hooray.

-smak-


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

smak said:


> According to Nikke Finke, Chuck will be back.
> 
> Hooray.
> 
> -smak-


That would be so awesome and it looks like Medium was renewed as well. So we all can have our shows.  I don't watch it but we can end the whole cancel Medium and keep Chuck talk.  But I'm still waiting to hear it directly from the horses mouth!


----------



## Enrique (May 15, 2006)

smak said:


> According to Nikke Finke, Chuck will be back.
> 
> Hooray.
> 
> -smak-


Yeeeeees. Thank you, Thank you NBC!!!:up::up::up:


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

smak said:


> According to Nikke Finke, Chuck will be back.
> 
> Hooray.
> 
> -smak-


Of course, Zach Levi and Josh Schwartz are being told that the announcement may not come for a few WEEKS. Who's right? Hard to say.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/05/chucks-fate-delayed-a-couple-weeks.html


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Enrique said:


> Then you might as well take the network behind the wood shield and put a bullet in it's brain. IMHO, Jay is the one keeping this network alive.


How many talk shows do we really need on one network?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> My suspicion is that the alternative to Leno at 10PM is NBC giving that hour back to the affiliates to fill themselves.


I doubt NBC will give up that hour. The alternative is more likely game shows, cheap "reality" shows or some other programming I won't be watching.

I don't know the contractual issues with Leno, I wonder if his show has to air 5 nights a week. Start Jay with 3 or 4 nights a week and be ready for a realy quick hook if a show bombs. Alternately start Jay 5 nights a week but reduce the number of shows if ratings are as bad as some of us think. Of course even bad ratings could produce a profitable show.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> How many talk shows do we really need on one network?


By all means, cancel the living hell out of Fallon and Daly.

Leno isn't causing the death of 10 pm NBC dramas - he just happens to be a convenient way of speeding up the inevitable by a year or two.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Ausiello's hearing that Life is a goner. Definitely good news for Chuck.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

I would prefer just about ANY other show on NBC be sacrificed to save Chuck. It's my favorite show on NBC currently.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

lambertman said:


> By all means, cancel the living hell out of Fallon and Daly.
> 
> Leno isn't causing the death of 10 pm NBC dramas - he just happens to be a convenient way of speeding up the inevitable by a year or two.


Deal! Nice doing business with you.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

smak said:


> According to Nikke Finke, Chuck will be back.
> 
> Hooray.
> 
> -smak-


OK, who is Nikke Finke and what magic eight ball it person using?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Johncv said:


> OK, who is Nikke Finke and what magic eight ball it person using?


Nikke Finke runs Deadline Hollywood Daily and reports for LA Weekly. She is pretty well connected in Hollywood.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Nikke Finke runs Deadline Hollywood Daily and reports for LA Weekly. She is pretty well connected in Hollywood.


And she often is the first to break stories like this...


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Any feel for her &#37; correct rate?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Ausiello's hearing that Life is a goner. Definitely good news for Chuck.


That's too bad about Life, but given a choice between Life and Chuck, I'd have to go with Chuck.

Of course, if they wanted to do 13-episode seasons of both and run them concurrently in the same time slot, I would be all for it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bicker said:


> Any feel for her % correct rate?


I don't read her column, so I have no direct knowledge of her accuracy rate. I do know that just about every time somebody here posts one of her scoops, it turns out to be true.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Has Subway ever commented on last week's campaign to save the show? Did our buying subs make any noticeable difference in their sales for that day?


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Fleegle said:


> Has Subway ever commented on last week's campaign to save the show? Did our buying subs make any noticeable difference in their sales for that day?


Not sure but we bought 3 foot longs the other day.


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

Kamakzie said:


> Not sure but we bought 3 foot longs the other day.


I got a couple. Both chicken teriyaki in honor of Big Mike.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

ebockelman said:


> I got a couple. Both chicken teriyaki in honor of Big Mike.


Sunny and I did the same


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Yeah, I was wondering if the fan mania made a difference at all.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Fleegle said:


> Has Subway ever commented on last week's campaign to save the show? Did our buying subs make any noticeable difference in their sales for that day?


I think the response I heard was, "Thanks, suckers!"



I have no idea of the size of sales of an average Subway Monday, but I seriously doubt that the number of _Chuck_ fans buying subs that day made any appreciable blip on their sales mark nationwide. I would guess they'd really have a much better feel for any impact caused by said _Chuck_ fans by the number of comments that may have been made actually pointing out the connection of their purchase and the reason for it.

But, hey, what do I know.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

According the Hercules at AICN, NBC will announce it tommorow as being renewed!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40960


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

He's just repeating the info from Nikki Finke that was posted here already.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm honestly not sure what to think anymore. Things were looking promising for a bit, but if they rumor that they'll push off any announcement on the show for weeks is true, that would mean (to me) that they intend to cancel it, and hope that the buzz around the show dies off by the time they announce.

That, or the wait is because they DO intend to move the show to cable, and they're waiting to make that announcement until after the network upfronts are done. That's a long shot, IMHO.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> I'm honestly not sure what to think anymore. Things were looking promising for a bit, but if they rumor that they'll push off any announcement on the show for weeks is true, that would mean (to me) that they intend to cancel it, and hope that the buzz around the show dies off by the time they announce.
> 
> That, or the wait is because they DO intend to move the show to cable, and they're waiting to make that announcement until after the network upfronts are done. That's a long shot, IMHO.


I could live with them moving it to USA Network or something just as long as it continues.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

If they do move it to USA Network, how about a Chuck/Burn Notice crossover?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I say if they DON'T renew Chuck, we all boycott whatever show replaces it at 8PM ET Mondays. I don't know why they can't just put it on mothballs if they don't renew and have a short season in January to replace some other weak show that inevitbly will show up on NBC. Similar to what CBS did with Jericho.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> If they do move it to USA Network, how about a Chuck/Burn Notice crossover?


I can totally see this.

"Most spys have very few bad habits. They either get rid of them early or they end up dead. And then there's Chuck"

or maybe

"Spys have to make their own luck. You rely on chance and you end up dead. And then there's Chuck"

[edit: can't speel]


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

No Chuck mentioned here... 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=425108


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Parks and Rec and Heroes are coming back, but Chuck isn't confirmed??? How F'd up is that. 

P&R sucks to the 10 power. And Heroes might be the most disappointing show on TV after a stellar first season.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I found this little nugget in a variety article.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003149.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&nid=2854


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> Parks and Rec and Heroes are coming back, but Chuck isn't confirmed??? How F'd up is that.
> 
> P&R sucks to the 10 power. And Heroes might be the most disappointing show on TV after a stellar first season.


Heroes I knew. P&R, I'm not surprised. NBC is obviouly pushing ANYTHING to do with SNL to the point of overkill. Wonder which ex-SNL star will next get a show. We now have Tina Fey/Tracy Morgan on 30 Rock (not to mention Alec Baldwin being a frequent host). Jimmy Fallon on late night. Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show, P&R has the SNL Alum as the lead. I bet there's more I'm not thinking of.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Kamakzie said:


> I found this little nugget in a variety article.
> 
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003149.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&nid=2854


The disappointing part of that article (at least what I could read) was that it sounds like Medium is getting some level of pickup. I was under the impression that either Chuck or Medium would be picked up, but not both.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Heroes I knew. P&R, I'm not surprised. NBC is obviouly pushing ANYTHING to do with SNL to the point of overkill. Wonder which ex-SNL star will next get a show. We now have Tina Fey/Tracy Morgan on 30 Rock (not to mention Alec Baldwin being a frequent host). Jimmy Fallon on late night. Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show, P&R has the SNL Alum as the lead. I bet there's more I'm not thinking of.


I don't remember Conan being on SNL. He was a writer for The Simpsons for a while, IIRC.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

BriGuy20 said:


> I don't remember Conan being on SNL. He was a writer for The Simpsons for a while, IIRC.


Back before he had his TV show he would be a 'audience' member that asks questions during the monologes. And he was in a couple sketches with small parts.


----------



## tgmii (Feb 21, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Heroes I knew. P&R, I'm not surprised. NBC is obviouly pushing ANYTHING to do with SNL to the point of overkill. Wonder which ex-SNL star will next get a show. We now have Tina Fey/Tracy Morgan on 30 Rock (not to mention Alec Baldwin being a frequent host). Jimmy Fallon on late night. Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show, P&R has the SNL Alum as the lead. I bet there's more I'm not thinking of.


Chevy Chase on Chuck... uh oh.. they killed him off...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

BriGuy20 said:


> I don't remember Conan being on SNL. He was a writer for The Simpsons for a while, IIRC.


He was a staff writer for awhile before he got his show.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Folks, I think it's time to face facts -- Chuck is doomed. I love the show, but this dancing around with NBC is horse puckey. They're just prolonging our agony. Accept its fate...Chuck is gone.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I'm honestly not sure what to think anymore. Things were looking promising for a bit, but if they rumor that they'll push off any announcement on the show for weeks is true, that would mean (to me) that they intend to cancel it, and hope that the buzz around the show dies off by the time they announce.
> 
> That, or the wait is because they DO intend to move the show to cable, and they're waiting to make that announcement until after the network upfronts are done. That's a long shot, IMHO.


I wonder if they're hoping for the kind of publicity that Jericho got. They either announce it as canceled, or announce that they're on the fence. Then Subway gets overwhelmed with support, and the NBC offices get drowned in boxes of Nerds. Then, two weeks from now, after all kinds of publicity about the grassroots campaigns to save Chuck, they announce that they're bringing it back. It's debatable whether such a move would help, but it certainly couldn't hurt.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I say if they DON'T renew Chuck, we all boycott whatever show replaces it at 8PM ET Mondays.


I'm going to actually look at the description of the show they decide to put at 8PM ET Mondays, and determine whether I'll watch it based on *its* merits, rather than possibly spiting myself out of a potentially enjoyable program.

My understanding is that the Medium/Chuck dichotomy has been broken, and now Chuck's renewal hinges on whether or not NBC picks up David E. Kelley's new series. If they don't, then Chuck is in. If they do, then Chuck is out. David E. Kelley does great television. So effectively, if my understanding is correct, whichever way they decide now will result in getting me to watch the program.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

BriGuy20 said:


> I don't remember Conan being on SNL. He was a writer for The Simpsons for a while, IIRC.


He co-wrote the nude beach sketch with all the "how's your penis" jokes. He was never a regular cast member, but he wrote for SNL before writing for The Simpsons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_obrien#Television_writer

If Medium gets renewed and Chuck and/or Life doesn't, I may boycott NBC. I'd miss The Office, but it's been hit or miss for me the past couple seasons anyway.


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Folks, I think it's time to face facts -- Chuck is doomed. I love the show, but this dancing around with NBC is horse puckey. They're just prolonging our agony. Accept its fate...Chuck is gone.


Not until I get the offical word from NBC will I accept this. Not until then.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Bierboy said:


> Folks, I think it's time to face facts -- Chuck is doomed. I love the show, but this dancing around with NBC is horse puckey. They're just prolonging our agony. Accept its fate...Chuck is gone.


No, I'm pretty certain it will be back.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Folks, I think it's time to face facts -- Chuck is doomed. I love the show, but this dancing around with NBC is horse puckey. They're just prolonging our agony. Accept its fate...Chuck is gone.


I think it's just the opposite....I think, based on ratings alone, that this show would have been a definite goner, but the reason it hasn't been outright canned by now has something to do with the very loyal fan base it DOES have. I think this show is truly on the fence and NBC is trying to figure out what to do with it. This could be like FNL, where they might work a deal somewhere to keep it alive.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bicker said:


> I'm going to actually look at the description of the show they decide to put at 8PM ET Mondays, and determine whether I'll watch it based on *its* merits, rather than possibly spiting myself out of a potentially enjoyable program.
> 
> My understanding is that the Medium/Chuck dichotomy has been broken, and now Chuck's renewal hinges on whether or not NBC picks up David E. Kelley's new series. If they don't, then Chuck is in. If they do, then Chuck is out. David E. Kelley does great television. So effectively, if my understanding is correct, whichever way they decide now will result in getting me to watch the program.


Well that's your choice. I'll probably choose not to watch it in protest (at least not watch it live, or during the timeframe that matters on DVRs).


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Is any part of this 'grass roots Save _Chuck_' movement actually going to translate into higher ratings? If it just means they keep the show on and it still gets the same ratings - I guess that's where TV execs earn their keep?


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

JLucPicard said:


> Is any part of this 'grass roots Save _Chuck_' movement actually going to translate into higher ratings? If it just means they keep the show on and it still gets the same ratings - I guess that's where TV execs earn their keep?


This is an excellent point. For all the crap we give to the network execs who cancel our favorite shows, the fact is that the whole "Burn in Hell [insert network name here]" is pretty much nonsense. These guys are not making these decisions without a ton of research. Something either makes money or it doesn't...or something will make money or it won't. Chuck's gotten 2 years to make its mark. The fact that it has to go through this kind of effort to get renewed means that if it does get cancelled it will probably be a wise business decision.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Well, the Burn In Hell fox thins, at lest to me, is because they keep putting on good shows aimed at young males on Friday nights. The night they are least likely to be home to watch TV. And then they ignore DVR viewings.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Fleegle said:


> Well, the Burn In Hell fox thins, at lest to me, is because they keep putting on good shows aimed at young males on Friday nights. The night they are least likely to be home to watch TV. And then they ignore DVR viewings.


Because DVR viewings show loyalty to a given show but they mean absolutely nothing in terms of actual revenue. How many people here, when watching the shows on the TiVo, actually watch the commercials that pay for the shows we watch?

It's all a business. Until the DVR providers start giving a cut of their service fees to the networks based on the DVR viewer numbers, the networks shouldn't pay attention to the DVR viewers. It's probably unwise to schedule these shows on Friday nights, but at least they're giving those shows a chance (which they wouldn't get on the other networks).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

The whole "burn in hell" thing is silly, because operationally it is you who are being "burned" by depriving yourself of options.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> Because DVR viewings show loyalty to a given show but they mean absolutely nothing in terms of actual revenue. How many people here, when watching the shows on the TiVo, actually watch the commercials that pay for the shows we watch?
> 
> It's all a business. Until the DVR providers start giving a cut of their service fees to the networks based on the DVR viewer numbers, the networks shouldn't pay attention to the DVR viewers. It's probably unwise to schedule these shows on Friday nights, but at least they're giving those shows a chance (which they wouldn't get on the other networks).


My point was that the audience they aim their Friday night shows at are the ones most likely to DVR them instead of watching them live. They're trying to recapture The X-Files success on that night and it's just not happening.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> The disappointing part of that article (at least what I could read) was that it sounds like Medium is getting some level of pickup. I was under the impression that either Chuck or Medium would be picked up, but not both.


Or maybe not.....

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2009/05/nbc-picks-up-medium.html


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Exclusive-Chuck-News-1005731.aspx


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Kamakzie said:


> http://www.tvguide.com/News/Exclusive-Chuck-News-1005731.aspx


Nice to read that the Subway campaign was noticed.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

the article said:


> "It's amazing," he said, "and that's the goal around those [partnerships]. That is a win-win."


So the goal is to get product placement sponsors, then screw around with your shows to the point where loyal fans are forced to buy product from the sponsor to get noticed? Okay, just checking.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Kamakzie said:


> http://www.tvguide.com/News/Exclusive-Chuck-News-1005731.aspx


The best part about that article is that if it gets renewed, Chuck will likely not be on Monday. That would be the best thing NBC could do. Monday is far too crowded. Tuesday and Wednesday in the fall are wastelands and Chuck could make some noise there. I'd even be happy with Chuck on Friday paired with FNL.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Tuesday and Wednesday in the fall are wastelands and Chuck could make some noise there.


But come Winter, they then would have to go up against American Idol or else move to a different time to avoid AI. Either case, they'll lose tons o' viewership.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

It is possible that Chuck will just get a smaller order, perhaps 13 episodes, and will just run mid-September through mid-December.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Because DVR viewings show loyalty to a given show but they mean absolutely nothing in terms of actual revenue. How many people here, when watching the shows on the TiVo, actually watch the commercials that pay for the shows we watch?


Even though I ffwd through the commercials, I still see them and know what products are being advertised.


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Even though I ffwd through the commercials, I still see them and know what products are being advertised.


It's still not the same. Companies spend millions to try and capture your attention for 15-30 seconds. You may see the product but miss out on the details.

And even if it's true for you, I'd imagine for the bulk of DVR customers, they simply gloss over the commercial they FF through.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bicker said:


> It is possible that Chuck will just get a smaller order, perhaps 13 episodes, and will just run mid-September through mid-December.


I'm of the belief that most television shows (with the notable exception of 24) would work better with 13-episode seasons. The story arcs are tighter and there are fewer throwaway episodes. It works quite well for pretty much every solid cable show out there, and I think Friday Night Lights was stronger this year in part because they only got a 13-episode pickup. I'd be thrilled if Chuck got a 13-episode run.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

holee said:


> It's still not the same. Companies spend millions to try and capture your attention for 15-30 seconds. You may see the product but miss out on the details.


Indeed. AAMOF, it is as likely as not that the impact of noticing an ad being FF or skipped over would be negative instead of as intentionally crafted by the advertiser. It is practically impossible to build an advertisement that is equally effective when viewed at normal speed, when FF over, and when skipped over.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm of the belief that most television shows (with the notable exception of 24) would work better with 13-episode seasons.


Perhaps, but then you get the interminable whining from some folks about how horrible it is to have to wait 39 weeks for the next new episode.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm of the belief that most television shows (with the notable exception of 24) would work better with 13-episode seasons. The story arcs are tighter and there are fewer throwaway episodes. It works quite well for pretty much every solid cable show out there, and I think Friday Night Lights was stronger this year in part because they only got a 13-episode pickup. I'd be thrilled if Chuck got a 13-episode run.


I agree with you that most shows would benefit with a shorter season but isn't 100 episodes the goal for syndication? Easier to get there with a 22 episode season than with a 13 episode season.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

However, FWIR, the value of the back-end, specifically syndication deals and DVD sales, has been sharply decreasing in recent years. That's one of the reasons why there is so much of a push to foster higher revenues (via product placement, perhaps even advertising overlays) on first broadcast, isn't it?


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

Sparty99 said:


> I'm of the belief that most television shows (with the notable exception of 24) would work better with 13-episode seasons. The story arcs are tighter and there are fewer throwaway episodes. It works quite well for pretty much every solid cable show out there, and I think Friday Night Lights was stronger this year in part because they only got a 13-episode pickup. I'd be thrilled if Chuck got a 13-episode run.


This is one of the reasons I enjoy a lot of British shows. Not all of them are brilliant, but when they're compressed to 6-13 episodes, it forces the writers and actors to focuse more.

I think that's one of the difference between Life on Mars UK vs US. The US episodes intentionally had fillers.

On the other hand, some stories and actors I enjoy so much I don't mind watching them for 100 episodes vs 60.

So it's a trade-off.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

holee said:


> ....they simply gloss over the commercial they FF through.


What is this "FF" you are speaking of?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Because DVR viewings show loyalty to a given show but they mean absolutely nothing in terms of actual revenue. How many people here, when watching the shows on the TiVo, actually watch the commercials that pay for the shows we watch?
> 
> It's all a business. Until the DVR providers start giving a cut of their service fees to the networks based on the DVR viewer numbers, the networks shouldn't pay attention to the DVR viewers. It's probably unwise to schedule these shows on Friday nights, but at least they're giving those shows a chance (which they wouldn't get on the other networks).


Except with more and more DVR viewers out there, the significance of the "30 second spot" will be less and less important. Where Chuck shines is in it's ability to have product placement. Between the Buy More, the high tech spy equipment, the cars they drive and so on, there's a huge opportunity to use :21st century" advertising. The networks and the advertisers might whine about it all they want (heck they whined about VCRs when they came out too), but the landscape of advertising on TV is changing, so they better jump on board, or their $$$ spend on the 30 second spot will give them less and less return on their money. Someone has to knock these guys over the head and tell them...THE OLD MODEL IS DEAD!!!! The problem with the networks is they have the same shortsighteness that so many executives in most other big businesses. The successes don't stay put very often and move from company to company for more money. The failures get fired. There's no long term loyalty anymore. There's no William Paley, or David Sarnoff running these things any longer.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The best part about that article is that if it gets renewed, Chuck will likely not be on Monday. That would be the best thing NBC could do. Monday is far too crowded. Tuesday and Wednesday in the fall are wastelands and Chuck could make some noise there. I'd even be happy with Chuck on Friday paired with FNL.


It doesn't matter WHAT night it's on, I'll DVR it anyway, and probably lead to it's dimise in the process under this advertising model. I watch pretty much NOTHING outside of sport live anymore. Even shows I watch on it's programmed night I usually wait 20 minutes to watch without ads. And more and more people I know do this.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

bicker said:


> Perhaps, but then you get the interminable whining from some folks about how horrible it is to have to wait 39 weeks for the next new episode.


Screw 'em. If we get Chuck for 13 episodes, I'd be thrilled, and the whiners can whine all they want.


cheesesteak said:


> I agree with you that most shows would benefit with a shorter season but isn't 100 episodes the goal for syndication? Easier to get there with a 22 episode season than with a 13 episode season.


I think the 100 episode level isn't as meaningful as it used to be. With DVDs and 100+ cable channels, there just isn't enough content if only those shows that went 100 episodes could be syndicated. Therefore, you're now seeing lots of shows in syndication that never made it close to 100 episodes. Jericho is reairing on CW, Arrested Development is constantly on G4, just to name a few.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Screw 'em. If we get Chuck for 13 episodes, I'd be thrilled, and the whiners can whine all they want.
> 
> I think the 100 episode level isn't as meaningful as it used to be. With DVDs and 100+ cable channels, there just isn't enough content if only those shows that went 100 episodes could be syndicated. Therefore, you're now seeing lots of shows in syndication that never made it close to 100 episodes. Jericho is reairing on CW, Arrested Development is constantly on G4, just to name a few.


I've seen a lot of re-airs way prior to 100 episodes. Didn't Lost just make it to 100 episodes? ABC here in NYC (not sure about national) has been airing Lost reruns every Sat night at 11:30 for 2 hours. Plus a lot of the cable channels have started re-airing week or two old episodes of current shows by their parent nets.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> It doesn't matter WHAT night it's on, I'll DVR it anyway, and probably lead to it's dimise in the process under this advertising model. I watch pretty much NOTHING outside of sport live anymore. Even shows I watch on it's programmed night I usually wait 20 minutes to watch without ads. And more and more people I know do this.


...including me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> I've seen a lot of re-airs way prior to 100 episodes. Didn't Lost just make it to 100 episodes? ABC here in NYC (not sure about national) has been airing Lost reruns every Sat night at 11:30 for 2 hours. Plus a lot of the cable channels have started re-airing week or two old episodes of current shows by their parent nets.


SciFi has been airing Lost reruns for many months now.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Nikke Finke did post an update regarding Chuck that I haven't seen anyone point out. Apparently the only reason they haven't announced a Chuck renewal is because they're trying to use it as a bargaining chip.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/nbc-announces-20092010-primetime-sked/


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

You beat me to it, LoadStar.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Nikke Finke did post an update regarding Chuck that I haven't seen anyone point out. Apparently the only reason they haven't announced a Chuck renewal is because they're trying to use it as a bargaining chip.
> 
> http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/nbc-announces-20092010-primetime-sked/


They are doing the same, only in opposite fashion with SVU.

It's renewed, yet the two leads aren't signed on yet. They have a contract out to them, but the show will go on without them if they don't take the deal.

Your move hotshots, what will you do...what will you do.

-smak-


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Stand Strong Warner Brothers. Don't let NBC push you around. Stay strong and accept cash only. That 2 million dollars is yours!


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

marksman said:


> Stand Strong Warner Brothers. Don't let NBC push you around. Stay strong and accept cash only. That 2 million dollars is yours!


Hey you....

Shut up...

/Stewie


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well... NBC ended up passing on "Legally Mad," David E Kelly's series, despite having to pay a VERY large sum to Warner Brothers. As noted above, NBC was hoping to use Chuck to try and avoid having to pay this charge. According to Zap2it, however, Variety notes that Chuck is still a strong candidate for renewal, despite this.

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsideth...egally-mad-and-what-that-means-for-chuck.html


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Well... NBC ended up passing on "Legally Mad," David E Kelly's series, despite having to pay a VERY large sum to Warner Brothers. As noted above, NBC was hoping to use Chuck to try and avoid having to pay this charge. According to Zap2it, however, Variety notes that Chuck is still a strong candidate for renewal, despite this.
> 
> http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsideth...egally-mad-and-what-that-means-for-chuck.html


Doesn't the fact that they passed on Legally Mad make a renewal for Chuck more likely, not less?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Doesn't the fact that they passed on Legally Mad make a renewal for Chuck more likely, not less?


The article explains it...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I dunno, I think I'd vote for a David E. Kelley show over Chuck!


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

mattack said:


> I dunno, I think I'd vote for a David E. Kelley show over Chuck!


Ya, because we need another wacky lawyer show from him.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Aniketos said:


> Ya, because we need another wacky lawyer show from him.


+1(00,000,000)

Seriously - _Ally McBeal_? Wacky lawyer show. _The Practice_? More serious lawyer show with wacky moments. _Boston Legal_? Wacky lawyer show. _Legally Mad_? Wacky lawyer show.

Admittedly, his recent attempts to do something other than wacky lawyer show haven't done too well (_The Wedding Bells_, the first pilot for _Life On Mars_) so I guess I don't blame him for sticking to what he does... I was going to say "well," but I think I'll leave it at "more than anyone else."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Of course, all of Kelley's shows were absolutely excellent. We always need excellent shows, just like those, to choose from.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I watched Boston Public but that show was absolutely ridiculous and I got sick of it after while.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Kamakzie said:


> I watched Boston Public but that show was absolutely ridiculous and I got sick of it after while.


Not until toward the end....it was a great show when it started, got better, then kinda faded...IMO...

EDIT: Wrongo on my part...I was reading Boston Legal, not Public...didn't watch Public.


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> +1(00,000,000)
> 
> Seriously - _Ally McBeal_? Wacky lawyer show. _The Practice_? More serious lawyer show with wacky moments. _Boston Legal_? Wacky lawyer show. _Legally Mad_? Wacky lawyer show.
> 
> Admittedly, his recent attempts to do something other than wacky lawyer show haven't done too well (_The Wedding Bells_, the first pilot for _Life On Mars_) so I guess I don't blame him for sticking to what he does... I was going to say "well," but I think I'll leave it at "more than anyone else."


and don't forget LA Law.

I always got the impression that his shows start off good because he's into them and then eventually veer into ridiculousness because he gets bored. LA Law did it, The Practice did it, Picket Fences did it. Boston Public kind of did. Boston Legal didn't have to because it was an offshoot of the ridiculousness of The Practice.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I think David E. Kelly's time on TV is done. Along with Steven Bochco. Let's move on and let Rob Thomas, Joss Whedon, and J.J. Abrams rule, with Jerry Bruckenheimer as the elder statesman.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I think David E. Kelly's time on TV is done. Along with Steven Bochco. Let's move on and let Rob Thomas, Joss Whedon, and J.J. Abrams rule.


I agree. His shows seem more of the same 1980s stuff. Just like Norman Lear's stuff doesn't translate well into today's landscape, I think those two dont translate well into it either. I would add Bruckheimer to Whedon, Abrams and Thomas (although I'm not real familiar with what he does, except Matchbox 20 lead singer has same name). I'm not really a fan of all the Bruckheimer procedurals, but he has had a lot of success recently.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Kamakzie said:


> I watched Boston Public but that show was absolutely ridiculous and I got sick of it after while.


Boston Public wasn't a David E Kelley show. Boston Legal was.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Boston Public wasn't a David E Kelley show. Boston Legal was.


IMDB and just about every other site on the Internet disagree with you.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Boston Public wasn't a David E Kelley show. Boston Legal was.


They both were.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Boston Public wasn't a David E Kelley show. Boston Legal was.


Actually both shows were made by David E Kelly


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

tem said:


> and don't forget LA Law.
> 
> I always got the impression that his shows start off good because he's into them and then eventually veer into ridiculousness because he gets bored. LA Law did it, The Practice did it, Picket Fences did it. Boston Public kind of did. Boston Legal didn't have to because it was an offshoot of the ridiculousness of The Practice.


L.A. Law was not a David E. Kelly show, It was Steven Bochco.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> L.A. Law was not a David E. Kelly show, It was Steven Bochco.


Bochco created it, but Kelley was at various times writer, editor, and executive producer.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I agree. His shows seem more of the same 1980s stuff. Just like Norman Lear's stuff doesn't translate well into today's landscape, I think those two dont translate well into it either. I would add Bruckheimer to Whedon, Abrams and Thomas (although I'm not real familiar with what he does, except Matchbox 20 lead singer has same name). I'm not really a fan of all the Bruckheimer procedurals, but he has had a lot of success recently.


Rob Thomas created "Veronica Mars." For that alone he should be celebrated.

He also created the old and new versions of "Cupid," which I enjoy but clearly no one else does.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Rob Thomas created "Veronica Mars." For that alone he should be celebrated.
> 
> He also created the old and new versions of "Cupid," which I enjoy but clearly no one else does.


OK, thanks, never watched either, so I guess that's why I don't know who he is. I guess though, one could argue that Bochco and Kelly had top rated shows with LA Law, Hill Street Blues, etc, while neither of those shows you mentioned were more than cult hits. Same could be said of Joss Whedon I suppose too. JJ Abrams, Lost was most definitely top 20 the first year, so he could be equated to Bochco / Kelly. But talent wise, they do equate.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> He also created the old and new versions of "Cupid," which I enjoy but clearly no one else does.


You're not alone. I loved the original and the new one is growing on me.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Rob Thomas created "Veronica Mars." For that alone he should be celebrated.
> 
> He also created the old and new versions of "Cupid," which I enjoy but clearly no one else does.


He also created party down, which means he finally got up on the scoreboard. 1 for 3 is not bad.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Nikki Finke posted a potentially final NBC fall schedule:


> MONDAY -- TRAUMA, Heroes, Leno
> TUESDAY -- Biggest Loser, Law & Order: SVU, Leno
> WEDNESDAY -- Biggest Loser, PARENTHOOD, Leno
> THURSDAY -- 30 Rock, P&R, Office, COMMUNITY, Leno
> ...


http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.c...dule-hmm-chuck-returning-southland-on-friday/

If this is accurate, Chuck is back - but it is on borrowed time, if they bury it in one of the Friday Night Death Slots.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Friday? They might as well cancel it. :down:

Assuming this is all correct, I'm happy to see Earl gone. That's been horrible for a good season-plus. Interesting choice to have 30 Rock as the Thursday lead-in...I would personally move The Office up instead.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Neenahboy said:


> Friday? They might as well cancel it. :down:


Can't you just be happy about 13 more episodes?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Really. The reality is that Friday is reasonable, given how poorly Chuck has been performing. No sense in wasting a good time slot on a show that isn't performing.

This is Chuck's second chance. It is up to people who like the show to get others to watch it, even on Friday, because the network just promoting it was not enough to keep the show on the air before and there is no reason to think that, alone, will be enough going forward. You can disclaim responsibility, but then you're basically condemning the show. Shows that people don't watch in big numbers don't deserve to survive even on Friday.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

As much as I agree that Chuck on Friday is better than no Chuck at all, we certainly know that its primary audience will DVR it...and that just won't cut it for the long term.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I predict that Leno will be a ratings implosion and NBC will be trying to figure a way out of the contract within a year.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Nikki Finke posted a potentially final NBC fall schedule:
> 
> http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.c...dule-hmm-chuck-returning-southland-on-friday/
> 
> If this is accurate, Chuck is back - but it is on borrowed time, if they bury it in one of the Friday Night Death Slots.


I still liked "Earl", but I'm OK with seeing it gone in favor of "Chuck". I like that schedule. A little surprise "Southland" is going to Fridays. I thought it was a good match for the ER crowd on Thursdays.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> Nikki Finke posted a potentially final NBC fall schedule:
> 
> http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.c...dule-hmm-chuck-returning-southland-on-friday/
> 
> If this is accurate, Chuck is back - but it is on borrowed time, if they bury it in one of the Friday Night Death Slots.


I would be sad to see earl go and to see chuck on borrowed time. I would rather see chuck on borrowed time than be canceled. I still think 2 hours is to much for the biggest loser. I FF through 70% of the show since it is filler I don't care about.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Though with TiVo, I rarely (if) ever watch live TV - even Chuck (even if I am home, I wait at least 15 mins). I do not really care when any network runs any show, though I am concerned that Chuck might return to the graveyard of Friday night. It is my favorite show!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Kamakzie said:


> I predict that Leno will be a ratings implosion and NBC will be trying to figure a way out of the contract within a year.


YEah, I think so. How long is the contract for? When the contract is gone, NBC is going to have 5 hours of programming to fill.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

MickeS said:


> I still liked "Earl", but I'm OK with seeing it gone in favor of "Chuck". I like that schedule. A little surprise "Southland" is going to Fridays. I thought it was a good match for the ER crowd on Thursdays.


The ER slot is gone next season - thanks again to Leno.

It really is a 10 PM ET show by design, but since that slot is gone, the best they can do is 9 PM ET. Heroes has a pretty good lock on 9 PM Monday. Thursday is comedy night (one of the things NBC still does OK at), so that's out. The nets have written off Saturday across the board, so you're left with Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday.

It doesn't really seem to fit as well on Wednesday, so from there's it's a roll of the dice for whether to put it on Tuesday or Friday.

(I imagine that there are some people in programming at NBC that are probably swearing at Leno right now. They've got shows that would be much better placed at 10 PM ET, but....)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> Nikki Finke posted a potentially final NBC fall schedule:
> 
> http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.c...dule-hmm-chuck-returning-southland-on-friday/
> 
> If this is accurate, Chuck is back - but it is on borrowed time, if they bury it in one of the Friday Night Death Slots.


I'm fine with Chuck on Friday. But I'm surprised that neither Medium nor L&O are on the schedule. I guess we can assume this is just for fall and that those others (along with FNL) will likely make the schedule in Jan.


Kamakzie said:


> I predict that Leno will be a ratings implosion and NBC will be trying to figure a way out of the contract within a year.


I seriously doubt that. Regardless of the ratings for Leno's new show, there is no way that NBC wants to lose him, as he'd be a formidable competitor in the 11:35 slot if he went to another network. If anything, I think NBC will be disappointed in the ratings for the Tonight Show will Conan and would move Jay back there before they'd get rid of Jay entirely.


MickeS said:


> I still liked "Earl", but I'm OK with seeing it gone in favor of "Chuck". I like that schedule. A little surprise "Southland" is going to Fridays. I thought it was a good match for the ER crowd on Thursdays.


Southland started off with great ratings, but those ratings tanked pretty significantly after the first couple of weeks. I think NBC realized this and while they're renewing it because they don't have a lot of other options, they realize that it's likely already worn out its welcome and won't amount to much.


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm fine with Chuck on Friday. But I'm surprised that neither Medium nor L&O are on the schedule. I guess we can assume this is just for fall and that those others (along with FNL) will likely make the schedule in Jan.


I just don't buy that they would cancel L&O. That show has almost been on the air for 20 years and just cancel it with no or little fanfare. Unless there moving it to the USA Network.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I still liked "Earl", but I'm OK with seeing it gone in favor of "Chuck". I like that schedule. A little surprise "Southland" is going to Fridays. I thought it was a good match for the ER crowd on Thursdays.


Well, _ER_ is gone, and NBC is devoting its 8-10 programming on Thursdays exclusively to comedies. I think NBC is pretty high on _Southland_, which does make the Friday slot a bit surprising, but where else could they put it?

In any event, while the Friday slot is probably the kiss of death, I'll take more _Chuck_ any way I can get it, for as long they'll let me have it.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> YEah, I think so. How long is the contract for? When the contract is gone, NBC is going to have 5 hours of programming to fill.


5 hours of programming for one week is probably roughly what they pay per season for Leno's show...


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Assuming this is all correct, I'm happy to see Earl gone. That's been horrible for a good season-plus.


Shame on you. Any series that can bring us hulu videos like this one deserves to stick around.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Michael S said:


> I just don't buy that they would cancel L&O. That show has almost been on the air for 20 years and just cancel it with no or little fanfare. Unless there moving it to the USA Network.


The story here is that the actress who plays Allison is contracted for 22 episodes, but NBC only want to produce 13 and will only pay for 13. The actress will do 13 but want her full contracted payment for 22 episodes. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, then Medium will be cancel and Law & Order will be renew. If both sides come to an agreement then Law & Order will be cancel.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> In any event, while the Friday slot is probably the kiss of death, I'll take more _Chuck_ any way I can get it, for as long they'll let me have it.


Truth is, Chuck is likely dead anyway. It'd be the modern exception indeed if it came back and found a ratings bounce in its third season -- let alone enough of one to take it off of perennial bubble status or worse. I hope they renew it, and I'll watch happily if they do, but we're probably playing with house money on every episode from here on out.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Johncv said:


> The story here is that the actress who plays Allison is contracted for 22 episodes, but NBC only want to produce 13 and will only pay for 13. The actress will do 13 but want her full contracted payment for 22 episodes. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, then Medium will be cancel and Law & Order will be renew. If both sides come to an agreement then Law & Order will be cancel.


I don't think they plan to cancel L&O in any event. They just plan to plug it in wherever they end up having a gap.... it'll be their go-to filler show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I don't think they plan to cancel L&O in any event. They just plan to plug it in wherever they end up having a gap.... it'll be their go-to filler show.


Yeah, wasn't it in limbo for quite a while this season, even though we knew it was coming back (with Goldblum) eventually?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, wasn't it in limbo for quite a while this season, even though we knew it was coming back (with Goldblum) eventually?


That's Criminal Intent - they shuffled that over to USA.

NBC has L&O (the classic) and L&O:SVU.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

Graymalkin said:


> I think David E. Kelly's time on TV is done. Along with Steven Bochco. Let's move on and let Rob Thomas, Joss Whedon, and J.J. Abrams rule, with Jerry Bruckenheimer as the elder statesman.


Don't forget Bryan Fuller


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Yes! Bryan Fuller!

Also Greg Berlanti's been getting a lot of work. _Jack and Bobby, Everwood, Dirty Sexy Money_ and _Eli Stone_ and currently _Brothers & Sisters._ And he's doing the _Green Lantern_ movie for next year.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Yes! Bryan Fuller!
> 
> Also Greg Berlanti's been getting a lot of work. _Jack and Bobby, Everwood, Dirty Sexy Money_ and _Eli Stone_ and currently _Brothers & Sisters._ *And he's doing the Green Lantern movie for next year.*


The animated one?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Fleegle said:


> The animated one?


The Live Action one.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm fine with Chuck on Friday. But I'm surprised that neither Medium nor L&O are on the schedule. I guess we can assume this is just for fall and that those others (along with FNL) will likely make the schedule in Jan.


I tend to agree with this. This past season both the original _L & O_ and _Medium_ were late season starts, as was _FNL_, except for us with DirecTV. Contract problems aside, it doesn't surprise me at all that these aren't on the fall schedule - especially since it's scaled back 33% to begin with (weeknights).


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I hope community is good. I think it would be the first time I ever liked all 4 comedies on Thursday night on NBC. I like Joel McHale, so thats good.

Where is Kath and Kim going to be?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Kamakzie said:


> I predict that Leno will be a ratings implosion and NBC will be trying to figure a way out of the contract within a year.


And will replace Leno with Dateline.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Maybe it's a GOOD thing to have Chuck on Friday nights. Expectations are a lot lower on Friday nights, and if it maintains something close to its current ratings, that might be fine for a Friday night. Leave it there, where it can't do TOO much harm to their schedule and satisfy their cult fans. It could be a place where they could try out some new advertising schemes as Chuck is really a show ripe for that.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> (I imagine that there are some people in programming at NBC that are probably swearing at Leno right now. They've got shows that would be much better placed at 10 PM ET, but....)


Swearing... 10 PM time slot...


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Maybe if everyone who has a TiVo records it AND if recording and watching something on your TiVo acutally means something when it comes to ratings, Chuck will have a chance on Fridays. 

This is becoming (though not too fast, and not quite yet), an age of time shifted viewing. Today, the time slot is rather meaningful. Some day (already tru for us with TiVo) a time slot will be more like a release date or release time. They will have to have a way of measuring how many people really watch the show - and at least TiVo is working on that.

I don't watch much TV on Firdays, but I never miss Numbers...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

daveak said:


> Maybe if everyone who has a TiVo records it AND if recording and watching something on your TiVo acutally means something when it comes to ratings


It only matters if you watch within 24 hours, IIRC.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe it's a GOOD thing to have Chuck on Friday nights. Expectations are a lot lower on Friday nights, and if it maintains something close to its current ratings, that might be fine for a Friday night.


That's a great point. If you look at CBS' Renew/Cancel Index on tvbythenumbers.com, you'll see that they generally cancel shows that get STD 18-49 Live+SD ratings of less than 3.0, except for shows on Friday night, for which they have no such expectations. Flashpoint is probably going to be renewed with a 1.9 rating, Numb3rs with a 2.1 rating, and Ghost Whisperer with a 2.4 rating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

mattack said:


> It only matters if you watch within 24 hours, IIRC.


And eventually, it will only matter if you actually watch the commercials. That's data that TiVo is now beginning to sell, and really all the people who are actually paying for the programming that we're watching care about.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bicker said:


> And eventually, it will only matter if you actually watch the commercials. That's data that TiVo is now beginning to sell, and really all the people who are actually paying for the programming that we're watching care about.


The thing is, unless Tivo and other DVRs prevent Fast Forward / 30 second skip (always talked about, not yet happened), the 30 second commercial as we know it will become obsolete as DVRs become more prevelent. So advertisers are going to have to come up with new schemes to sell their products. As we've discussed, there will be more "in show" commercials such as the overt Subway product placement in Chuck. So, in a case like this, as long as you watch, be it Live, DVR, Hulu or whatever, you should get some bang for your buck. I think you might also start to see banners (not sure what the parliance is for those little bugs you see on your screen when watching a show that advertises some upcoming show) for products. But I think over the next 10 years you will see less and less importance placed on the 30 second ad.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

ebockelman said:


> Shame on you. Any series that can bring us hulu videos like this one deserves to stick around.


Wow.... :up:


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I think you might also start to see banners (not sure what the parliance is for those little *bugs* you see on your screen when watching a show that advertises some upcoming show) for products.


You got it right.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

bicker said:


> And eventually, it will only matter if you actually watch the commercials. That's data that TiVo is now beginning to sell, and really all the people who are actually paying for the programming that we're watching care about.


So assuming 'Chuck' comes back (and I am fairly certain that will happen), we all need to watch at least one commercial every episode. As long as the 30 sec commercials still seem to matter to the networks...


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

daveak said:


> So assuming 'Chuck' comes back (and I am fairly certain that will happen), we all need to watch at least one commercial every episode. As long as the 30 sec commercials still seem to matter to the networks...


Not gonna happen on my end. Someone will have to watch 2 to make up for me.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

So is today the day that we expect to hear something, or are we waiting for the upfronts on the 19th?


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Fleegle said:


> So is today the day that we expect to hear something, or are we waiting for the upfronts on the 19th?


I've heard Tuesday.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

daveak said:


> I've heard Tuesday.


Yea, that's the 19th. That's what I was afraid of...

Pins and needles here. Even if it's on a Friday night, I want more Chuck!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Sparty99 said:


> Not gonna happen on my end. Someone will have to watch 2 to make up for me.


We could do this. Let the commercials run and just get up to get something to eat or go to the bathroom. You know, like we did in the dark ages before VCR's were common. That way, they _think_ we are watching the commercials. 

Which brings up a point. If advertisers think that people watched commercials before VCR's or DVR's came along, they're being delusional.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

steve614 said:


> Which brings up a point. If advertisers think that people watched commercials before VCR's or DVR's came along, they're being delusional.


+1 :up:


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Sparty99 said:


> Not gonna happen on my end. Someone will have to watch 2 to make up for me.


Why not just play it the first time while you are at work or sleeping or something, and then they will think you watched all the commercials.

then you can come back later and zip through it. Because you "already" saw the commercials, it is reasonable you would skip them the second time.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Receive a message from Zap2it that Dollhouse has been renew.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, unless Tivo and other DVRs prevent Fast Forward / 30 second skip (always talked about, not yet happened), the 30 second commercial as we know it will become obsolete as DVRs become more prevelent.


Thereby making advertising on television less valuable, thereby resulting in progressively less and less money for programming on television, thereby resulting in lower and lower quality and quantity of programming.



Steveknj said:


> So advertisers are going to have to come up with new schemes to sell their products.


They've always had several, but television viewers don't really care about that. We care about getting money from the advertisers to fund our television addiction.



Steveknj said:


> As we've discussed, there will be more "in show" commercials such as the overt Subway product placement in Chuck.


And as we discussed, the business case for shows that cannot support product placement, like Lost (as many Lost fans contend), becomes increasing precarious, and such "high quality" shows become increasingly rare.

Because there is not enough profit motive for those kinds of show.



Steveknj said:


> I think you might also start to see banners (not sure what the parliance is for those little bugs you see on your screen when watching a show that advertises some upcoming show) for products.


I'm just waiting for the wave of complaints when that starts happening, from folks too myopic to see that we've collectively brought such things on ourselves.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Sparty99 said:


> Not gonna happen on my end. Someone will have to watch 2 to make up for me.


Ditto, so someone will have to watch three to make up for both of us.

And so on.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Just found this on Ausiello's Twitter page.

"It's true: Chuck returning for 13 episodes! BUT there's a twist, and it's a bummer. More to come..."

Wonder what the bummer is?

I heard budget was cut but I wonder if it was cut a lot and that's the bummer part.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Knowing Ausiello, the bummer is that it is moving to Friday.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/05/its-official-nb.html

Scaling back the number of episodes for the supporting cast and possibly eliminated one and he has "RIP Anna??"


----------



## David Ortiz (Jul 8, 2002)

probably a cast shakeup


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

Kamakzie said:


> Just found this on Ausiello's Twitter page.
> 
> "It's true: Chuck returning for 13 episodes! BUT there's a twist, and it's a bummer. More to come..."
> 
> ...


God the bummer is its only back for 13 episodes. My guess is we're losing Buymoria (which I'm kinda ok with)

EDIT:

Here's the bad news: The 13-episode pickup came after Warner Bros. agreed to make significant budget concessions, including scaling back the number of episodes several members of the show's stellar supporting cast will appear in and, per one insider, possibly eliminating one actor altogether (R.I.P. Anna Wu?). The show is also expected to cut two of its staff writers.

DOUBLE EDIT: Wow a lot of posted in a minute span.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Frankly, I'm surprised any of the buy-more crew are coming back, particularly Anna and Morgan. They did seem to write off those two characters in particular, and the Buy-More in general. With only 13 episodes, they should just focus exclusively on Chuck's spy life and not worry about a cover job.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Bets on who's going to get removed if someone does?


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> Bets on who's going to get removed if someone does?


As much as I'd hate losing the Buy More supporting cast, at this point it's probably in the best interests of the show to lose the Buy More completely. Perhaps... just perhaps, keep Morgan around in some way. Lose Awesome and Chuck's sister except for special guest episodes (which they could perhaps do with some of the other Buy More characters) and do as suggested above, move Chuck along to being a full fledged bumbling spy and not simply the bumbling geek who has to be a spy. Use Orion (Chuck's dad) as someone that is in danger for an episode arc perhaps, but otherwise relegate him to special guest star status as well and keep the cast salaries in check as much as possible while maintaining decent stories.

I'm sure that the next season will be loaded down with product placements (that hopefully won't be too obnoxious), but hopefully the show won't be such a victim of the cost cutting axe that we just can't stand it.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

terpfan1980 said:


> I'm sure that the next season will be loaded down with product placements (that hopefully won't be too obnoxious), but hopefully the show won't be such a victim of the cost cutting axe that we just can't stand it.


That's just what I think as well, something along the lines of Jericho, Sprint and a shortened (and completely crappy) season.

I *hope* like hell that's not the case, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed here.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

terpfan1980 said:


> I'm sure that the next season will be loaded down with product placements (that hopefully won't be too obnoxious), but hopefully the show won't be such a victim of the cost cutting axe that we just can't stand it.


It'd be kinda funny if their cover was a Subway sandwich shop.


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

twhiting9275 said:


> That's just what I think as well, something along the lines of Jericho, Sprint and a shortened (and completely crappy) season.
> 
> I *hope* like hell that's not the case, but I'm not keeping my fingers crossed here.


Or it could be like Friday night lights and they rebound with a awesome season. Chuck has a very large cast I can live with out a few of them. Also a shortened season might not be so bad less filler episodes and a more focused show. I do admit I will miss the buy more crew as many episodes that was the best part of the show.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

vikingguy said:


> Also a shortened season might not be so bad less filler episodes and a more focused show.


Just so everyone knows, other sources report that there's an option for a back nine pickup.

Linky: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/17/chuck-renewed/18828


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Neenahboy said:


> Just so everyone knows, other sources report that there's an option for a back nine pickup.
> 
> Linky: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/17/chuck-renewed/18828


Not for nothing, but those "other sources" really don't weigh much when both Ausiello *and* TVGuide say the same thing, 13 episodes.

I'd *love* to see a full 22, but until the other 9 are confirmed by someone reputable, I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

twhiting9275 said:


> Not for nothing, but those "other sources" really don't weigh much when both Ausiello *and* TVGuide say the same thing, 13 episodes.
> 
> I'd *love* to see a full 22, but until the other 9 are confirmed by someone reputable, I'm not going to hold my breath.


That's why it's called an option. They order 13, see how that goes, then they might pick up the back 9, it's not a guarantee. Nor is it particularly surprising - it would be a rather odd television contract NOT to include an option for the back 9.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'll take 13 episodes of Chuck anyway I can get them. Unless, of course, they recast Chuck, Sarah, and Casey.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Chevy Chase and Scott Bakula must have cost a pretty penny.

I don't mind a 13 episode season. Cut out the filler episodes and craft a story arc where every episode means something.

I guess Buymoria has to go but I have to admit that I really liked those idiots the second half of the season.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> I'll take 13 episodes of Chuck anyway I can get them. Unless, of course, they recast Chuck, Sarah, and Casey.


I'm becoming a firm believer that 13-episode seasons are much more enjoyable than 22. You get a much tighter run where every episode is enjoyable.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

What I'm concerned about is that they *won't* get rid of the Buy More. I think I would prefer Chuck with a much smaller set of characters: Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Ellie, Awesome, and maybe Morgan.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bicker said:


> Thereby making advertising on television less valuable, thereby resulting in progressively less and less money for programming on television, thereby resulting in lower and lower quality and quantity of programming.


The thing is, whatever the case, it IS the way things are going to go. You can't deny this, by living in the past. Advertising firms are already starting to change their strategies. You can't live in the past and count on the same strategies that have always worked. Times have changed.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

I'm suprised that BuyMore is written out. 
What a great built-in moneymaker for the show by selling ad time for tech products displayed/demoed.


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

I could see them getting rid of the Buy More.

Chuck is now a much more active agent. He won't have the time to have 2 full-time jobs.

And in a show about secrets, eventually, the supporting cast has to figure it out. Getting rid of them fixes this.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I did not like the buy-more scenes. At the beginning of the show it was okay because Chuck was working there and adjusting to everything. Then he was there less and less.... it just made no sense to see what was going on in the Buy-More without chuck there. 

And how he got away with "I was on an install" yet was never asked to show it. Isn't that a source of revenue for the store, yet he would have no record of it?


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> That's why it's called an option. They order 13, see how that goes, then they might pick up the back 9, it's not a guarantee. Nor is it particularly surprising - it would be a rather odd television contract NOT to include an option for the back 9.


The point is that there is no solid proof of the "back 9" being ordered from credible sources. Tvguide, Ausiello, thr, all have said 13 episodes. tvbythenumbers may be a great website, but when it comes to reporting things such as this, they're merely speculating



5thcrewman said:


> I'm suprised that BuyMore is written out.
> What a great built-in moneymaker for the show by selling ad time for tech products displayed/demoed.


Nobody knows that it's written out "yet", though that is entirely within the realm of possibility given the show's lower budget.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NJChris said:


> And how he got away with "I was on an install" yet was never asked to show it. Isn't that a source of revenue for the store, yet he would have no record of it?


I always figured the CIA just put in service calls whenever they needed Chuck...


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Maybe they could do a story where Buy More is bought out by Best Buy.  Talk about the ultimate in advertising.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I always figured the CIA just put in service calls whenever they needed Chuck...


I thought that too until one of the first episodes with Emmett. He started looking through lists of forms that said Chuck was out on an Install but found no records of the installs.

I agree that cutting Buy More would be the best way to cut costs.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Kamakzie said:


> Maybe they could do a story where Buy More is bought out by Best Buy.  Talk about the ultimate in advertising.


I'm actually surprised they didn't use Best Buy from the beginning, honestly. Subtle ? Not so much, but IF they did it right, it would go over incredibly well.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> I'm actually surprised they didn't use Best Buy from the beginning, honestly. Subtle ? Not so much, but IF they did it right, it would go over incredibly well.


Problem is selling the companies on it. Companies are skittish about stuff like that, and producers are skittish because you incorporate sponsors too much into the show and they have a say over what goes on, to a much greater degree.

You would think something like that is a no brain natural fit for Best Buy, and I suspect they would have been able to do it for a relatively inexpensive price given the exposure versus cost involved. However, I think they are afraid and view it as a risk. If something on the show comes off wrong or is perceived poorly, it is much more likely to reflect badly on them, in their opinion, than if they just had a commercial during the break.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

twhiting9275 said:


> The point is that there is no solid proof of the "back 9" being ordered from credible sources. Tvguide, Ausiello, thr, all have said 13 episodes. tvbythenumbers may be a great website, but when it comes to reporting things such as this, they're merely speculating.


I think you need to re-read that article. Nobody, not even tvbythenumbers, is saying that the back 9 were picked up. It's far too premature for that. All they're saying (which is almost certainly true because that's the way the industry works) is that the renewal contract includes an option for 9 more episodes if the network decides to order them.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> I think you need to re-read that article. Nobody, not even tvbythenumbers, is saying that the back 9 were picked up. It's far too premature for that. All they're saying (which is almost certainly true because that's the way the industry works) is that the renewal contract includes an option for 9 more episodes if the network decides to order them.


I realize that nobody said they were doing this, however, the ONLY source to even *mention* the other 9 is an unreliable source. Everybody else (THR, Ausiello, TVguide) is saying *13* episodes, period. No "option for 9", nothing more.

Any Chuck fan wants their show to have a full season, but the reality is they've only got 13 episodes. More? Yah, there's *always* a slim possibility, but those 13 episodes are all we've got, nothing more.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

twhiting9275 said:


> I realize that nobody said they were doing this, however, the ONLY source to even *mention* the other 9 is an unreliable source. Everybody else (THR, Ausiello, TVguide) is saying *13* episodes, period. No "option for 9", nothing more.


On the other hand, the network would be utterly insane if they _didn't_ have a back-half option. It costs them absolutely nothing, and not having it would eliminate the possibility (since they would have to negotiate a new contract if they decide to go for a full season later).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The thing is, whatever the case, it IS the way things are going to go. You can't deny this, by living in the past. Advertising firms are already starting to change their strategies. You can't live in the past and count on the same strategies that have always worked. Times have changed.


Abso-friggen-lutely.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

5thcrewman said:


> I'm suprised that BuyMore is written out.


Has anyone seen any of the producers or writers explicitly say that they will not be returning to the Buy More scenario? Or is that just something people are assuming due to how the season finale worked out?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

bicker said:


> Has anyone seen any of the producers or writers explicitly say that they will not be returning to the Buy More scenario? Or is that just something people are assuming due to how the season finale worked out?


I've read NOWHERE ("officially") this is happening; I believe it's all speculation at this point.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

twhiting9275 said:


> I realize that nobody said they were doing this, however, the ONLY source to even *mention* the other 9 is an unreliable source. Everybody else (THR, Ausiello, TVguide) is saying *13* episodes, period. No "option for 9", nothing more.
> 
> Any Chuck fan wants their show to have a full season, but the reality is they've only got 13 episodes. More? Yah, there's *always* a slim possibility, but those 13 episodes are all we've got, nothing more.


Once again, we all realize there are only 13 episodes that have been ordered. And if the ratings are anything like this season, it's unlikely there will be any more (especially with FNL coming back in the spring). But to think that there isn't a network option for the back 9 simply because it wasn't reported in some of the articles you read is extremely naive, IMO.


bicker said:


> Has anyone seen any of the producers or writers explicitly say that they will not be returning to the Buy More scenario? Or is that just something people are assuming due to how the season finale worked out?


It's purely speculation based on both the events of the season finale and the fact that the studio and network negotiated a big discount for further episodes of the show, so they'll have to be made much less expensively. The easiest way to cut a big chunk from the show's budget is to get rid of the Buy More set and the cast that populates it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's purely speculation based on both the events of the season finale and the fact that the studio and network negotiated a big discount for further episodes of the show, so they'll have to be made much less expensively. The easiest way to cut a big chunk from the show's budget is to get rid of the Buy More set and the cast that populates it.


Actually, it would be cheaper to keep it and spend more time shooting on a paid-for set and less time on expensive location shoots.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Actually, it would be cheaper to keep it and spend more time shooting on a paid-for set and less time on expensive location shoots.


From a location perspective, you're probably right, although we don't know how much rent they're paying for that space. Remember, it's not warehouse space in a back lot somewhere. It's a viable retail storefront in an operating shopping center. That kind of square footage isn't cheap.

But my point was mostly based on the cast. I don't know what second-tier actors make on a per-episode basis, but I'd guess they could save at least $100k per episode by getting rid of Jeff, Lester, Big Mike and Emmett. And probably another $100k by getting rid of Morgan and Anna.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...I'd guess they could save at least $100k per episode by getting rid of Jeff, Lester, Big Mike and Emmett. And probably another $100k by getting rid of *Morgan and Anna.*


..and eliminate the cost of any "on-site" filming of them in Hawaii...


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

We saved Chuck by supporting Subway, we must save the Buy More buy supporting the Buy More! Wait, oh wait, you mean the Buy More isn't real? Well, at least Chuck is, what?!?!? No way, the show is just a cover for a real CIA operation in Hollywood?

Anyway, it appears the news is very good. The 'guessed' twists are of some concern, but we shall see. We will always have the first two seasons...


----------



## vikingguy (Aug 12, 2005)

holee said:


> I could see them getting rid of the Buy More.
> 
> Chuck is now a much more active agent. He won't have the time to have 2 full-time jobs.
> 
> And in a show about secrets, eventually, the supporting cast has to figure it out. Getting rid of them fixes this.


He should have more time for the buy more since he has an instant win button now.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> I'm actually surprised they didn't use Best Buy from the beginning, honestly. Subtle ? Not so much, but IF they did it right, it would go over incredibly well.


I can't find the link right now, but as I remember it, they did start out conceptually with the store being Best Buy, changing to the fictional "Buy More" only after it didn't work out (either $$$ or the chain backing out).


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

What funny about all this is that Reaper may also be renew...

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Fall-TV-Reaper-1006053.aspx


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

twhiting9275 said:


> I realize that nobody said they were doing this, however, the ONLY source to even *mention* the other 9 is an unreliable source. Everybody else (THR, Ausiello, TVguide) is saying *13* episodes, period. No "option for 9", nothing more.
> 
> Any Chuck fan wants their show to have a full season, but the reality is they've only got 13 episodes. More? Yah, there's *always* a slim possibility, but those 13 episodes are all we've got, nothing more.


It's pretty much standard for all shows to have a contract that the network has an option for more episodes. It could be an option for a second season or for more episodes in a current season. It doesn't cost the network anything really and it locks up the actors and producers and writers, that way if the network does want more episodes or another season they don't have to renegotiate with everyone. It's not always reported because it's just pretty standard in the contracts and most people don't care about options that may not happen.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The only problem with a 13 episode season is that if they do pickup the option late, those extra 9 will feel tacked on. Especially if they design the arc of the season to be 13 episodes.

-smak-


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> The only problem with a 13 episode season is that if they do pickup the option late, those extra 9 will feel tacked on. Especially if they design the arc of the season to be 13 episodes.
> 
> -smak-


You mean they design story arcs in advance? Someone should tell Ronald D. Moore.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> You mean they design story arcs in advance? Someone should tell Ronald D. Moore.


We're still making such cracks? The show's but a distant memory to me.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> The only problem with a 13 episode season is that if they do pickup the option late, those extra 9 will feel tacked on. Especially if they design the arc of the season to be 13 episodes.


I doubt they'd have any problem structuring a season so that it would end well in 13, but be able to continue to 22. They'd have to leave something for a potential third season anyway.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt they'd have any problem structuring a season so that it would end well in 13, but be able to continue to 22. They'd have to leave something for a potential third season anyway.


Honestly, they'd probably be best to deal with short story arcs and not even try for any sort of season long arc. Perhaps borrow a page from the final season of Star Trek: Enterprise and go with stories that are made up of 2 or 3 part episodes at best, concentrating on keeping up the quality for those episodes and not even worrying about whether or not the back 9 gets picked up or not. If the option is picked up you just continue with the same formula so that viewers can jump into the series for pretty much any episode and not be lost if they do.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt they'd have any problem structuring a season so that it would end well in 13, but be able to continue to 22. They'd have to leave something for a potential third season anyway.


Everytime that kind of thing happens, shows seems to suffer.

They'll make some big u-turn of the show that will make it last the extra 9.

When you don't know where your ending arc is going to be, things tend to go bad.

Maybe they'd pull it off.

-smak-


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

smak said:


> Everytime that kind of thing happens, shows seems to suffer.
> 
> They'll make some big u-turn of the show that will make it last the extra 9.
> 
> ...


A show doesn't have to have an ending arc. Especially a show like Chuck, which doesn't have one central plot with an implied ending. Just resolve the season's a-story, and have a b-story that can take over for the second half (or for the next season, or never).

I agree that in a show like 24 that damaged the strucutre, back when they did that. But 24's seasons are discrete stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. Chuck ain't like that. It can afford to be a lot more flexible in structure, since it doesn't really _have _a "natural" structure.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt they'd have any problem structuring a season so that it would end well in 13, but be able to continue to 22. They'd have to leave something for a potential third season anyway.


They just need to have Anna get amnesia for a few episodes around the 14th... 



bicker said:


> What I'm concerned about is that they *won't* get rid of the Buy More. I think I would prefer Chuck with a much smaller set of characters: Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Ellie, Awesome, and maybe Morgan.


I agree. I'll miss some of their hijinx, but not most of them. It would be nice if we could get a little bit of them, but not nearly as much as we have.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I loved the pinkberry/red mango thing, but I suspect Sarah will work at a Subway next season. 

Given the events of the finale, it won't be hard to think of a new cover story for Chuck if they do axe the Buy More, methinks.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> We're still making such cracks? The show's but a distant memory to me.


Please, I'm still promising to kick JJ Abrams in the nuts over 'Alias'. 

He redeemed himself slightly with Star Trek though, so I might wear sneakers instead of steel-toed boots.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Not for nothing, but those "other sources" really don't weigh much when both Ausiello *and* TVGuide say the same thing, 13 episodes.
> 
> I'd *love* to see a full 22, but until the other 9 are confirmed by someone reputable, I'm not going to hold my breath.


From Ausiello's twitter.



> More NBC: Ben Silverman says network may extend Chuck order beyond 13 episodes.


http://twitter.com/EWAusielloFiles


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

Are any of the "sources" really reliable given that the announced schedule has Chuck still on Monday nights when it was all but a sure thing that it was being moved to Friday?


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

ronsch said:


> Are any of the "sources" really reliable given that the announced schedule has Chuck still on Monday nights when it was all but a sure thing that it was being moved to Friday?


I think Ben Silverman could be considered a reliable source.


----------



## Crrink (Sep 3, 2002)

busyba said:


> Please, I'm still promising to kick JJ Abrams in the nuts over 'Alias'.
> 
> He redeemed himself slightly with Star Trek though, so I might wear sneakers instead of steel-toed boots.


Hehehe, you and me both!
I did enjoy the fate of Arvin Sloan, but the rest of the ending was nearly "Moorian" in suckitude.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Aniketos said:


> From Ausiello's twitter.


Which is HOW old now? An hour? As opposed to the actual *announcement* being made 2 days ago? Umm, yeah, welcome to the discussion, try to keep up with the timelines, thanks!



ronsch said:


> Are any of the "sources" really reliable given that the announced schedule has Chuck still on Monday nights when it was all but a sure thing that it was being moved to Friday?


Ausiello and TV guide, yes. I"m not going to say they *won't* get it wrong ( we all screw up ), but they're professional about it.

I'm glad to see they "may" order the episodes, but it'll be a hard sell unless the first 13 sell like mad, and, honestly, judging by how long it's taken them to make *any* decision, it really doesn't look good.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ronsch said:


> Are any of the "sources" really reliable given that the announced schedule has Chuck still on Monday nights when it was all but a sure thing that it was being moved to Friday?


I just saw that and I'm kind of pissed off about it. That was a horrible time slot for Chuck, because it was going against DWTS, House and the CBS comedies and therefore had virtually no shot of ever finishing above 4th place in its timeslot. Had it been moved to Friday, I think it could have been much more successful against weaker competition and lower expectations.

At least it appears that it will be going against The Bachelor in 2010 rather than DWTS. I guess that's a little bright spot.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

twhiting9275 said:


> I'm glad to see they "may" order the episodes, but it'll be a hard sell unless the first 13 sell like mad, and, honestly, judging by how long it's taken them to make *any* decision, it really doesn't look good.


You really have no idea how the TV industry works, do you? The reason it took them so long to make the decision is because they were in negotiations to reduce the per-episode licensing fee. Not all that uncommon, and perfectly reasonable.

As for whether they'll order the back 9, nobody is making any kind of announcement about that. Nobody is saying that they may order it. It's simply being reported that it's an option in the contract, and it's an option that they won't have to make a decision on until probably February of next year, so there's really no point in talking about it until then.

Frankly, I think that bringing it back in the same Monday timeslot virtually guarantees that there won't be a back 9 order, while I think a Friday timeslot might have warranted it.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> You really have no idea how the TV industry works, do you? The reason it took them so long to make the decision is because they were in negotiations to reduce the per-episode licensing fee. Not all that uncommon, and perfectly reasonable.


Yet plenty of other shows were announced as "renewed" well before Chuck was. It all boils down to how well they think it will translate into advertising $$$, and how much viewability they think it will have. OBVIOUSLY it was headed out the door, or it would have been a DEFINITE renewal well before now.

NBC started renewing shows 2 weeks ago, including P&R, the office, Celebrity Apprentice, etc. If Chuck was such a great hit for them, they would have announced this THEN.

Tips that they're NOT thrilled about the show:

Tip #1 - They renew everything else first, and keep the show's fans in suspense.

Tip #2 - They order a *partial* season of the show

Tip #3 - Massive budget cuts ensue

You can call it "industry standard" if it makes you feel better, but the reality is that they obviously are hesitant about Chuck. If they weren't, there would have been no problem, then the above three wouldn't have even come up.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Anyone know when the S2 boxset comes out? I've only seen one episode and was hoping to catch up during the Summer.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

twhiting9275 said:


> Yet plenty of other shows were announced as "renewed" well before Chuck was. It all boils down to how well they think it will translate into advertising $$$, and how much viewability they think it will have. OBVIOUSLY it was headed out the door, or it would have been a DEFINITE renewal well before now.
> 
> NBC started renewing shows 2 weeks ago, including P&R, the office, Celebrity Apprentice, etc. If Chuck was such a great hit for them, they would have announced this THEN.
> 
> ...


Many of those shows you mentioned were renewed much longer ago than two weeks. It was no secret that Chuck was on the bubble for renewal, which is why this thread got started. It's no surprise that the renewal announcement only came after some give and take between the show and the network. Just the opposite for Medium, whose star refused to take a pay/episode cut, and therefore NBC didn't renew it.

Basically, I don't get where you're coming from. It's like you are in this thread to flaunt the fact that Chuck barely survived and taunt the people who are happy that it survived at all. Do you go to the hospital and laugh at the families of the people in the ICU, because their loved ones aren't healthy enough to get out of their beds? Are you sure you're not related to Alfer?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

twhiting9275 said:


> Tips that they're NOT thrilled about the show:


Well, really, those are tips that they ARE thrilled about the show. So thrilled, they'll do anything to keep it alive even in the face of ratings that don't warrant a renewal.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

wprager said:


> Anyone know when the S2 boxset comes out? I've only seen one episode and was hoping to catch up during the Summer.


Amazon has it on pre-order but no release date yet. Most likely, early fall, maybe late fall due to the newest announcement by NBC/TV Guide



DevdogAZ said:


> Basically, I don't get where you're coming from. It's like you are in this thread to flaunt the fact that Chuck barely survived and taunt the people who are happy that it survived at all. Do you go to the hospital and laugh at the families of the people in the ICU, because their loved ones aren't healthy enough to get out of their beds? Are you sure you're not related to Alfer?


Hey, I'm a Chuck fan, like (almost) everyone in this thread, but I'm also a realist.. Hope is great, but in the end, that's all it is, just hope. I loved the first season of Chuck, haven't made it (fully) through 2, because it's DVR'ed and I watch it with friends when we can, but what I've seen I love.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, really, those are tips that they ARE thrilled about the show. So thrilled, they'll do anything to keep it alive even in the face of ratings that don't warrant a renewal.


That logic is completely backwards. They're so thrilled about the show that they cut episodes, cut costs, delay announcements. Yeah, that's really showing that they're *thrilled*.

This news pretty much closes any hope for the back 9 though:



> Though Chuck was picked up for a third season, the action-comedy's fervent fans will have to wait until midseason (after the Winter Olympics, specifically) to get their fix. NBC boss Ben Silverman said in a Tuesday conference call that Chuck's cast will not be whittled down to meet a reportedly reduced budget.


While they still COULD do 22 episodes, if they're going to put off the start till after the Winter Olympics, that would be pretty hard to accomplish.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Chuck is scheduled to air in the Hero's time slot *after the winter Olympics*, probably the first week in March. I suspect it's more likely the number of episodes will be reduced rather then increased.

All bets are off if Leno really tanks and NBC needs programming fast. NBC can make money even if Leno gets bad ratings. The ratings have to be so low that it becomes difficult to book A guests. Ratings so low the affiliates ratings for the 11p news get a big hit.


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

13 episodes = 3 months, so I think they could still pull out the full 13 episodes, running from March -> June, but it'll be a tight fit.

I *doubt* Leno will tank, I mean, he's been hosting for how many years now? If he was going to tank, he would have done it then and been replaced. Isn't this pretty much going to be just what he's doing now, only earlier? Of course, the time slot COULD prove to be problematic.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

twhiting9275 said:


> That logic is completely backwards. They're so thrilled about the show that they cut episodes, cut costs, delay announcements. Yeah, that's really showing that they're *thrilled*.


Yes, that's exactly what it shows. Because normally in this kind of situation, they DON'T RENEW THE SHOW. The fact that they did is a sign that they really want it to succeed, and against all odds are going to give it another chance. True, they're not going to bankrupt the studio doing it, but the fact that they've worked this hard to keep the bloody thing on the air says a lot.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

The time slot is the issue with Leno. Do people want to watch that kind of show at 10p? Prime time variety specials haven't done that well recently. It's not clear how Leno will affect Conan's show. Will it be harder to book A guests for both shows?

Does anyone know if a show that's schedule to start in March will start shooting at the same time shows that start in September/October start shooting?

I know they can fit 13 episodes in the time period. My point is it's almost impossible to fit more then 13. I think it's more likely the number of episodes will get reduced rather then increased.

What happens if Heros ratings dramatically improve? I wonder if Chuck is almost on "standby" status.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

There are a lot of people in the mid-west who don't mind watching Leno at 10:30, so I can see people on the east and west coasts liking Leno at 10. (Of course the real question then is are those people in the mid-west going to want to watch Leno at 9! ) 

And is the new Leno going to be more variety, or is he going to stick to the monologue-skit/bit-talk-musical act format the late night talk shows usually follow?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes, that's exactly what it shows. Because normally in this kind of situation, they DON'T RENEW THE SHOW. The fact that they did is a sign that they really want it to succeed, and against all odds are going to give it another chance. True, they're not going to bankrupt the studio doing it, but the fact that they've worked this hard to keep the bloody thing on the air says a lot.


I think there are people at the network who love the show. I think I read somewhere the Ben Silverman is a fan. I agree, much like Arrested Devlopment, they feel that there is enough here to warrent giving it another go, but I am surprised they kept in on Monday. But my feeling is they thing that the show has much the same audience as Heroes and the Heroes crowd would stay with NBC. Also, bringing Chuck back AFTER football is over could help, since it's probably a male oriented show.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

From what they showed on the Hulu video, I'm expecting it to be The Tonight Show minus the interviews. He mentioned celebrity guests, so I guess they'll be worked into the bits.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

twhiting9275 said:


> I *doubt* Leno will tank, I mean, he's been hosting for how many years now? If he was going to tank, he would have done it then and been replaced. Isn't this pretty much going to be just what he's doing now, only earlier? Of course, the time slot COULD prove to be problematic.


I seem to recall something else tanking after ballooning to 4 or 5 nights in the schedule.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

BriGuy20 said:


> I seem to recall something else tanking after ballooning to 4 or 5 nights in the schedule.


So going from 5 nights a week to 5 nights a week qualifies as balloning on the schedule?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

BriGuy20 said:


> I seem to recall something else tanking after ballooning to 4 or 5 nights in the schedule.


But Leno is not ballooning at all. He's going to be on the exact same amount of time he's been on for the last 16 years, where his show has held the #1 spot that entire time.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Sparty99 said:


> So going from 5 nights a week to 5 nights a week qualifies as balloning on the schedule?


IIRC, It went from being a special to about 3 nights a week to 4. I would call that ballooning.

@Dev: He's on the same number of hours, but in front of a larger audience at 10PM than he would be at 11:35PM (or whatever other time you crazyclowns do it in other time zones)


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Just Glad Chuck is Back - And on Mondays! :up::up:

Though I will need to wait until after the 5 ring circus of sports... I think keeping it on Monday night will help the show - though it will have to get better ratings than it would if it was scheduled on Friday night. And I think they are also betting Chuck fans will tune into the new sci-fi show they are scheduling after Chuck. So they are using Chuck to get another show going - they must think it is worth keeping.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Given that Chuck won't start until Heroes has completed its run, and therefore probably not until after the Olympic Games, I don't see there being much chance of more than 13 episodes.

If you look at the full NBC schedule, you could almost give yourself the impression that they're figuring that all their scripted dramas will do poorly that they will need to replace all but three of them mid-season.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bicker said:


> Given that Chuck won't start until Heroes has completed its run, and therefore probably not until after the Olympic Games, I don't see there being much chance of more than 13 episodes.
> 
> If you look at the full NBC schedule, you could almost give yourself the impression that they're figuring that all their scripted dramas will do poorly that they will need to replace all but three of them mid-season.


or they think Leno may tank and want inventory available. Low ratings may be profitable for NBC but deadly for affiliates 11p news ratings.

You're right, no chance of extra episodes of Chuck if NBC keeps to the current schedule and starts its run after the Olympics.

edited to add--I may be cynical but I wonder if skeptical affiliates like the one in Boston were given some assurance that NBC has a plan "B" ready if Leno does poorly.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

twhiting9275 said:


> Which is HOW old now? An hour? As opposed to the actual *announcement* being made 2 days ago? Umm, yeah, welcome to the discussion, try to keep up with the timelines, thanks!...


What is your freakin' problem, man? Any time someone posts something *you* think isn't timely, you have to make a wise-ass comment. Get over it.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I just saw that and I'm kind of pissed off about it. That was a horrible time slot for Chuck, because it was going against DWTS, House and the CBS comedies and therefore had virtually no shot of ever finishing above 4th place in its timeslot. Had it been moved to Friday, I think it could have been much more successful against weaker competition and lower expectations.
> 
> At least it appears that it will be going against The Bachelor in 2010 rather than DWTS. I guess that's a little bright spot.


+1

On another note, if I was CBS I would pick up Medium and keep it at 10 PM on Monday up against Leno rather than pair it with Ghost Whisperer on Friday night as has been suggested.


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

twhiting9275 said:


> Which is HOW old now? An hour? As opposed to the actual *announcement* being made 2 days ago? Umm, yeah, welcome to the discussion, try to keep up with the timelines, thanks!
> 
> Ausiello and TV guide, yes. I"m not going to say they *won't* get it wrong ( we all screw up ), but they're professional about it.
> 
> I'm glad to see they "may" order the episodes, but it'll be a hard sell unless the first 13 sell like mad, and, honestly, judging by how long it's taken them to make *any* decision, it really doesn't look good.


The question was "Is there a more reliable source?" the answer was, "Yes here is your more reliable source, Ben Silverman." Please learn to read before posting.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

twhiting9275 said:


> Tip #3 - Massive budget cuts ensue


Ben Silverman said today that there are no plans to cut the budget. Probably thanks to Subway.

By way of exchange, I'll bet a prior poster is right: the next Castle location is going to be under a Subway.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

Ausiello interviewed Josh Schwartz on his plans for the show:

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/05/exclusive-chuck.html?cnn=yes


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

What happened to page 5? When I go to page 5, all I get is post #201 with no page 6 available.
Posts 202 -250 are non-existent. 
When I go to page 4, I can get to page 6.

Very odd.


Fixed now. No one else noticed?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

CW move Smallville to Friday putting up against Chuck, so is this going to hurt Chuck? I cannot see this helping.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But Chuck is on Mondays...


----------



## twhiting9275 (Nov 17, 2006)

Johncv said:


> CW move Smallville to Friday putting up against Chuck, so is this going to hurt Chuck? I cannot see this helping.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Chuck is on Mondays...


There was talk of it being moved to Friday, but it is listed on all schedules as a Monday replacement for Heroes when their season ends.


----------

