# The Fall 2013 Annual which show gets cancelled first thread.



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I haven't looked close enough yet so I'll come back with my answer later. But it's always fun to speculate


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm thinking Back in the Game (ABC), or Welcome to the Family (NBC). I will give the slight edge to Back in the Game because it debuts first.


----------



## NJ_HB (Mar 21, 2007)

Trophy Wife.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Prime candidates:

The Goldbergs
Trophy Wife

I'll need to go back and review the descriptions on The Futon Critic as I suspect there are at least a few more that may not survive the first couple of weeks.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

I'm going with "We Are Men".


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Trophy wife, only because I've never cared for the actress who plays her.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Question: what definition of "cancelled" is being used? No, it's not a rehash of the old "cancelled vs. not renewed" argument ("_The Cleveland Show_ wasn't 'cancelled'; it just wasn't renewed"); I mean, if a show is put on hiatus for a planned burnoff at some later date (for example, _666 Park Avenue_), does that count?

I'm going to go for a longshot - _Dads_. (My second choice is _Back in the Game_.) Now that _The Cleveland Show_ is out of production and _American Dad_ will be off the Fox schedule next season (it's moving new episodes to TBS), Seth MacFarlane doesn't have the pull that he used to. I wouldn't be surprised if he's trying to get _Dads_ into the post-Super Bowl timeslot. (It's still _New Girl_ and "one of the new shows" (possibly the premiere of _Murder Police_), the last I heard about it.)


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

First show pulled from its normal schedule. Doesn't matter if they plan on a later burn-off, or move it to a "new" time. Once a show has been pulled from its premier slot (or regular slot), it's Dead Man Walking.

To win bonus points, you have to call it before the pilot.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Fox's "Dads" gets my vote. Looks horrible, and Seth MacFarlane got absolutely savaged at the TCAs.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

I'm thinking "Back in the Game"-I saw a commercial for it, and it looked more like a "Hallmark Hall of Fame" movie than a series-do they really think it's going to last?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Regina said:


> I'm thinking "Back in the Game"-I saw a commercial for it, and it looked more like a "Hallmark Hall of Fame" movie than a series-do they really think it's going to last?


My guess is, they're going to try to sell it as the next _Bad News Bears_ (which, IIRC, lasted a season, but with a retcon from the movie - this version won its league championship game; I think the last scene was setting up something similar to the game in _The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training_, but at Dodger Stadium instead of the Astrodome).


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

That Don Guy said:


> My guess is, they're going to try to sell it as the next _Bad News Bears_ (which, IIRC, lasted a season, but with a retcon from the movie - this version won its league championship game; I think the last scene was setting up something similar to the game in _The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training_, but at Dodger Stadium instead of the Astrodome).


I watched the pilot the other night and it def has a BNB vibe to it. Having seen it and Trophy Wife, I didn't think either pilot was very good, but I give a slight edge to Trophy Wife to last longer.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> Fox's "Dads" gets my vote. Looks horrible, and Seth MacFarlane got absolutely savaged at the TCAs.


Same here. Critical comments from TCA were scathing, as you indicate.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

"Dads" might last a bit longer because of the publicity-bad or good, it's publicity...

"Trophy Wife" does look terrible, but Malin Ackerman is funny and if the child actors are any good it might last for a few eps...

The retooling of "Bad News Bears" (the movie) was a bomb, and "Back in the Game" looks like one too...man, I would hate to see what the networks rejected....


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> Same here. Critical comments from TCA were scathing, as you indicate.


But that may, it least initially, get eyes on it. Some of the comments made looked like they had never seen McFarland's work. Nothing I've seen of Dads looks any worse than what he pulls on Family Guy.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

Ironside


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

Langree said:


> But that may, it least initially, get eyes on it. Some of the comments made looked like they had never seen McFarland's work. Nothing I've seen of Dads looks any worse than what he pulls on Family Guy.


The difference being that this time, Seth Greene actually has to carry a show. Kiss of death right there.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Just finished watching The Goldbergs, it plays like The Wonder Years, but in the 80's.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Neenahboy said:


> The difference being that this time, Seth Greene actually has to carry a show. Kiss of death right there.


Based on?

The only show I recall him taking lead on is Greg the Bunny, and that was years ago.

I think it will depend on the supporting cast too, and Martin Mull is no slouch, he does well with "edgy".


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

_Welcome to the Family_ for comedy. _Sleepy Hollow_ on the drama side.

On a side note, I love these ABC promo photos. They look like they're cobbled together from a bunch of individual photos of each actor and then Photoshopped in front of the background image.
















None of these people have ever met or even been in the same room together.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getbak said:


> None of these people have ever met or even been in the same room together.


Must have made making the shows an interesting experience... 

But yeah, those pix are pretty bad...they look more like "This is what we're thinking, guys; what do you think?" than "Put out a press release!"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm going with Sleepy Hollow. I give it two weeks, then gone.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I'm going with Sleepy Hollow. I give it two weeks, then gone.


Really? Does Fox still do that?

I've gotten the impression that lately, especially with genre shows, they've been absurdly generous in giving them a chance...


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Fox generally doesn't axe a show as quickly as ABC or NBC. Pretty much anything on those two networks will likely go first. The execs at those networks are like the panel on The Gong Show. If they don't see the numbers they expect after the first week or two you can kiss that show goodbye. It's a good thing these idiots weren't in charge when Seinfeld or M.A.S.H. first aired because neither show would have survived past the first season. New shows rarely get the chance to develop a large enough fan base to justify keeping it. A lot of shows don't really gel until the 2nd season and most people learn about them via word of mouth. The network execs essentially put out a gag order if they don't see the numbers immediately.

There's no guarantee than a show that gets pulled from the fall lineup prematurely will actually get cancelled. Revolution supposedly got cancelled during the fall season and they stopped showing the series. They aired the final episodes at the end of the winter season, which isn't that unusual. What is unusual is that it got renewed for a 2nd season after the remaining episodes were aired. Go figure.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? Does Fox still do that?


I think they'll do it if it is clearly a DOA, and I think that one will be. I haven't seen even a hint of a buzz from the genre audience, and I don't think it will market well to *any* audience, genre or no.

The idea of a modern day Legend of Sleepy Hollow might be an interesting movie or miniseries, but an ongoing series? I don't see it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But Fox has on several occasions kept a show on the air despite historically low numbers. Sometimes even giving it a second season (and yes, Terminator had a studio that was desperate to keep it on the air, but Dollhouse didn't), or third, or fourth (I'm lookin' at YOU, Fringe!). 

They've gone from the BiH Network to the Showrunner's Best Friend Network. I think they'll give it a chance to catch on, even if it launches badly. And then after a while, they'll move it to Friday and renew it for another season. THEN they'll pull the plug.


----------



## zuko3984 (May 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I think they'll do it if it is clearly a DOA, and I think that one will be. I haven't seen even a hint of a buzz from the genre audience, and I don't think it will market well to *any* audience, genre or no.
> 
> The idea of a modern day Legend of Sleepy Hollow might be an interesting movie or miniseries, but an ongoing series? I don't see it.


It had a pretty big presence at San Diego comic con and the pilot screening had a large turnout with a very enthusiastic audience reaction. While that isn't always a sure sign of a hit it is a good sign. Unlike the turnout for the panel and screening of the Tomorrow People which had a low turnout for the pilot screening and a less then great reaction from the audience. 
The Sleepy Hollow pilot has also gotten mostly positive reviews from critics. 
I think it is going to be a moderate success.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I haven't looked close enough yet so I'll come back with my answer later. But it's always fun to speculate


Any sitcom or so call "reality show" can be cancel now.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Edmund said:


> Ironside


A "politically correct" Ironside.  agree :down::down::down:


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Johncv said:


> A "politically correct" Ironside.  agree :down::down::down:


Hmm. I could read between the lines here...


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

lambertman said:


> Hmm. I could read between the lines here...


Not worth it, and no reason for John to think that's why the actor was chosen. He happens to be a very good actor.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Langree said:


> Not worth it, and no reason for John to think that's why the actor was chosen. He happens to be a very good actor.


Yes, I agree the actor is good actor. My point is why redo Ironside at all, and then cast a "black" actor to make the show "politically correct". What the plan to take all old Ironside scripts, update them and then re-shoot the show? Have we reach the point where writers cannot write anymore? Come up with a new ideal? The whole show just come off as "tacky" to me.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm going on history, D Wilson & R Glass in the "New Old Couple", Ving Rhames in "Kojak", it doesn't work.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

mr.unnatural said:


> There's no guarantee than a show that gets pulled from the fall lineup prematurely will actually get cancelled. Revolution supposedly got cancelled during the fall season and they stopped showing the series. They aired the final episodes at the end of the winter season, which isn't that unusual. What is unusual is that it got renewed for a 2nd season after the remaining episodes were aired. Go figure.


You're either confused or just making things up. Revolution was never in danger of being canceled during the fall/winter season. It was one of the highest rated shows on NBC. It was announced in October that the second half of the season would air in the spring after a 4 month hiatus. The renewal came a month after its return.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Edmund said:


> I'm going on history, D Wilson & R Glass in the "New Old Couple", Ving Rhames in "Kojak", it doesn't work.


I liked Ving as Kojak.

Could the reason they cast it the way they have is to be more PC, absolutely.

But to assume that's the reason, that says more about you than them.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

I mentioned a single word, Ironside, what you read into that, is all about YOU, not me. Now DROP DEAD!!!


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Edmund said:


> I mentioned a single word, Ironside, what you read into that, is all about YOU, not me. Now DROP DEAD!!!


So exactly what "history" were you going on? Given what was being discussed.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

Langree said:


> So exactly what "history" were you going on? Given what was being discussed.


The rating weren't there, they were cancelled.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Edmund said:


> The rating weren't there, they were cancelled.


oh..

ok...

I believe you..

no really...

I do...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

IMHO a politically correct Ironside would have an actor who was actually in a wheelchair star in the role. A black actor in the role doesn't make it politically correct, it's just a casting choice. There is absolutely nothing about the character that has anything to do with race, it's about the character being in a wheelchair.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> IMHO a politically correct Ironside would have an actor who was actually in a wheelchair star in the role. A black actor in the role doesn't make it politically correct, it's just a casting choice. There is absolutely nothing about the character that has anything to do with race, it's about the character being in a wheelchair.


They had a goodreason for not going with a disabled actor. The ability to do flashbacks, pre-incident. So I have no issue with that.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> They had a goodreason for not going with a disabled actor. The ability to do flashbacks, pre-incident. So I have no issue with that.


I don't have an issue with it either, but that would have been the "politically correct" choice if that's what they were trying to do.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But Fox has on several occasions kept a show on the air despite historically low numbers. Sometimes even giving it a second season (and yes, Terminator had a studio that was desperate to keep it on the air, but Dollhouse didn't), or third, or fourth (I'm lookin' at YOU, Fringe!).
> 
> They've gone from the BiH Network to the Showrunner's Best Friend Network. I think they'll give it a chance to catch on, even if it launches badly. And then after a while, they'll move it to Friday and renew it for another season. THEN they'll pull the plug.


What Fox does with a show pretty much depends on one thing: does it have anything to put into its timeslot that will do better? Usually - especially for hour-long dramas - the answer is "no," which is probably why both _Alcatraz_ and _The Mob Doctor_ lasted 13 weeks. (I think the last time they did pull an hour drama early was _LoneStar_.) It's twice as big a problem with _Sleepy Hollow_, as Fox plans to air "instant repeats" on Fridays for a few weeks.

There's also the "Til Death Rule" - Fox usually won't cancel a show at the end of its third season because it knows it can get a deal on a fourth season from producers who are desperate to get enough episodes for syndication.


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

3 votes:


Back in the Game
Ironside
Enlisted

Just my opinion. (From previous, "Enlisted" looks really dumb).


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I vote Dads. Stupid.


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I vote Dads. Stupid.


When two shows like this come on TV in the same year:

"Dads" & "Mom" you have to wonder about the "Creative minds" and their abilities in Hollywood.

On the other hand, one is from Chuck Lorre, so I dunno....


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

Back in the Game and The Goldbergs are my votes. 

It will be interesting to see how the Michael J. Fox show turns out. That could go either way IMO. Also, Masterchef Jr? I'll like to see how they make that work.

But from what Kevin Spacey said in his speech about how Netflix gets it. They make over 100 pilots, and what they are offering up this fall was considered to be the best of them?


----------



## allan (Oct 14, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I'm going with Sleepy Hollow. I give it two weeks, then gone.


Off with its head!


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Historically it's whatever stars Jerry O'Connell or Seth Green.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Really? Does Fox still do that?


Was it last season or 2 seasons ago that Fox nuked something after ONE airing? Drama on Monday nights, IIRC..


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

mattack said:


> Was it last season or 2 seasons ago that Fox nuked something after ONE airing? Drama on Monday nights, IIRC..


Yeah...Lone Star, wasn't it? After 2 eps, IIRC....I kind of liked it, too bad...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Regina said:


> Yeah...Lone Star, wasn't it? After 2 eps, IIRC....I kind of liked it, too bad...


I always wondered about that one...I suspected something must be going on behind the scenes.

IIRC, it was a show that was impossible to describe briefly in a way that made it sound interesting (or even not unpleasant), and thus impossible to market effectively. But given how rapturous the reviews are, you'd think the network of Terminator and Dollhouse would have given it more time.

2010, by the way, so three years ago...


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

where's the "New Fall Shows You're Planning to Watch" thread? 

Mine are:

- Andy Samberg's 'Brooklyn Nine-Nine' (Fox)
- 'The Golbergs'


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> Back in the Game and The Goldbergs are my votes.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the Michael J. Fox show turns out. That could go either way IMO. *Also, Masterchef Jr? * I'll like to see how they make that work.
> 
> But from what Kevin Spacey said in his speech about how Netflix gets it. They make over 100 pilots, and what they are offering up this fall was considered to be the best of them?


When I saw the commercial for Masterchef Jr., I turned to my wife and said, "That's it, they've officially run out of ideas!" This is worthy of a fall TV spot? Really?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

markymark_ctown said:


> where's the "New Fall Shows You're Planning to Watch" thread?
> 
> Mine are:
> 
> ...


http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=508138


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

thanks!


----------



## Hercules67 (Dec 8, 2007)

I remember Lonestar. It was a weird mash up of ideas, but I kinda wanted to watch it. They promoted the heck out of it, but then it died.

They run out of ideas years ago, that's why they're rebooting so many things.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Watched Ironside today, I liked it. I like that he wasn't a "pefect cop" pre-injury, he was downright nasty. 

I like that that still comes through.

This one shows promise.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

ncbill said:


> Historically it's whatever stars Jerry O'Connell or Seth Green.


I don't feel too bad for Jerry O'Connell, he's married to Rebecca Romjin, I would rather spend my time at home than working if I were him.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

getbak said:


> On a side note, I love these ABC promo photos. They look like they're cobbled together from a bunch of individual photos of each actor and then Photoshopped in front of the background image.


The dude on the left's foot is merged with the kid's, while James Caan's body is in front of the woman, but her foot's in front of his.

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Greg


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DeDondeEs said:


> Also, Masterchef Jr? I'll like to see how they make that work.


Keep in mind that _Masterchef Jr._ is already scheduled to end by November 1 (_Bones_ will move to its timeslot on 11/8; _Almost Human_ takes over the _Bones_ Monday timeslot four days earlier).


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

ncbill said:


> Historically it's whatever stars Jerry O'Connell or Seth Green.


Maybe Jerry O'Connell should redo "Sliders"


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

allan said:


> Off with its head!


Why? 'Sleepy Hollow" look like might be a fun show. It can't any more fun the "Under the Dome"


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Dracula. The previews I've seen make me not interested to see something I was interested in seeing.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Why? 'Sleepy Hollow" look like might be a fun show. It can't any more fun the "Under the Dome"


I don't get the hook of "Headless Horseman and Icabod Crane come through time"..

Ok, how long can they drag it out?


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Langree said:


> I don't get the hook of "Headless Horseman and Icabod Crane come through time"..
> 
> Ok, how long can they drag it out?


I think it will be like "National Treasure". The search for something to kill the "Headless Horseman" who is one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". If not stop, the Horseman will attempt to opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons forth four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses. The Headless Horseman ride a black horse. Although some interpretations differ, in most accounts, the four riders are seen as symbolizing Conquest, War, Famine, and Death, respectively. The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the four horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment. Icabod Crane beheaded the black horseman during the American Revolution. How he end up in the present we don't know yet. Set up a season pass.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Johncv said:


> I think it will be like "National Treasure". The search for something to kill the "Headless Horseman" who is one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". If not stop, the Horseman will attempt to opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons forth four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses. The Headless Horseman ride a black horse. Although some interpretations differ, in most accounts, the four riders are seen as symbolizing Conquest, War, Famine, and Death, respectively. The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the four horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment. Icabod Crane beheaded the black horseman during the American Revolution. How he end up in the present we don't know yet. *Set up a season pass.*


I wonder what will be on Univision at the same time.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Sounds more like "Zero Hour"



Johncv said:


> I think it will be like "National Treasure". The search for something to kill the "Headless Horseman" who is one of the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". If not stop, the Horseman will attempt to opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons forth four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses. The Headless Horseman ride a black horse. Although some interpretations differ, in most accounts, the four riders are seen as symbolizing Conquest, War, Famine, and Death, respectively. The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the four horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment. Icabod Crane beheaded the black horseman during the American Revolution. How he end up in the present we don't know yet. Set up a season pass.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

markymark_ctown said:


> where's the "New Fall Shows You're Planning to Watch" thread?
> 
> Mine are:
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I'm pretty sure you posted int he right thread.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

We may already have a winner: Fox has moved the premiere of Enlisted from November 8 to January 10. The excuse Fox gives is "so it can take advantage of our winter sports promotional platform," but why start a show so close to NBC's coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympics?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

That Don Guy said:


> We may already have a winner: Fox has moved the premiere of Enlisted from November 8 to January 10. The excuse Fox gives is "so it can take advantage of our winter sports promotional platform," but why start a show so close to NBC's coverage of the 2014 Winter Olympics?


Seems to me that guarantees it _won't_ be a winner, even if it's canceled after one ep...because now surely something else will be canceled sooner?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Seems to me that guarantees it _won't_ be a winner, even if it's canceled after one ep...because now surely something else will be canceled sooner?


Do we count shows that were scheduled and never air? Perhaps that's the possibility here. Although I don't think so.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Nah, give a show at least one episode to fail


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I now vote for Men At work with Jerry Oconnel


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I now vote for Men At work with Jerry Oconnel


That would be a neat trick. He's not on Men At Work, and it's not a new show.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Sorry, "We are Men"


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

It's not starting until early October so it may have a disadvantage to being first but "Super Fun Night" does not look entertaining at all.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

5 minutes into the show 

ready to cast my vote for Brooklyn Nine-Nine


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Brooklyn Nine Nine getting excellent reviews, so it could last.

-smak-


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

smak said:


> Brooklyn Nine Nine getting excellent reviews, so it could last.
> 
> -smak-


From who?! That was utter crap! It was beyond bad, Samberg was his usual cheesy self.

I actually feel bad for Andre Brauer.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Now, I thought Dads showed promise, it wasn't as tasteless as they made it out to be. But I like raunchy off color humor.


----------



## sean67854 (Jul 11, 2001)

Langree said:


> They had a goodreason for not going with a disabled actor. The ability to do flashbacks, pre-incident. So I have no issue with that.


Why do they always get a "walky" actor to pretend to be in a wheelchair? Why don't they ever get a "wheelie" actor to pretend to walk?


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Brooklyn 9 9 and dads will be gone soon.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

sean67854 said:


> Why do they always get a "walky" actor to pretend to be in a wheelchair? Why don't they ever get a "wheelie" actor to pretend to walk?


I tried pretending to walk before, you'd hafta use stop motion and splice between the falling.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

PLEASE let it be Dads. What a piece of crap


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

cannonz said:


> Brooklyn 9 9 and dads will be gone soon.


I thought Brooklyn 9-9 was pretty good. It comes from the Parks and Rec team so it's got a good pedigree as well.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> I thought Brooklyn 9-9 was pretty good. It comes from the Parks and Rec team so it's got a good pedigree as well.


So you thought the "secret tie" and speed-o bit were good writing?

I like Parks and Rec, this was just stupid.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> So you thought the "secret tie" and speed-o bit were good writing?
> 
> I like Parks and Rec, this was just stupid.


Didn't laugh at the secret tie, but did at the manscaping comment. Also laughed at the speedo bit at the end, so good writing or not, I thought it was funny.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I guess I just don't by into the "Best detective we have" so let him be a disrespectful idiot. Thing.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> I guess I just don't by into the "Best detective we have" so let him be a disrespectful idiot. Thing.


You didn't enjoy M*A*S*H then either? It's an old trope.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> You didn't enjoy M*A*S*H then either? It's an old trope.


Love MASH, this is no MASH.

Hawkeye may have disobeyed orders etc, but he was never the fool in the throne room.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Love MASH, this is no MASH.
> 
> Hawkeye may have disobeyed orders etc, but he was never the fool in the throne room.


Definitely not MASH, but you and I saw Hawkeye differently then. Depending on whose throne room it was, he could definitely be the fool. How many episodes did a superior officer want to string him up until they saw he was the best at what he did?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> Definitely not MASH, but you and I saw Hawkeye differently then. Depending on whose throne room it was, he could definitely be the fool. How many episodes did a superior officer want to string him up until they saw he was the best at what he did?


Ok, he was never the fool, just to be the fool. from day one we knew how Hawkeye felt about where he was, the war. There was a reason behind his actions. 
This character is just a "look at me be a spaz" character, most likely due to the fact that Samberg has one character and no depth as an actor.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Ok, he was never the fool, just to be the fool. from day one we knew how Hawkeye felt about where he was, the war. There was a reason behind his actions.
> This character is just a "look at me be a spaz" character, most likely due to the fact that Samberg has one character and no depth as an actor.


In any case, the disrespectful clown that gets away with it because they are very good at their job isn't a huge stretch in television regardless of their motivation.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Dads was _horrible_. That should be first to go, no question. Did not crack a smile at anything. Actually maybe there was one funny thing. But I've forgotten what it was.

99 was not bad. It started out rocky but it picked up steam and that's a good sign.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

jamesl said:


> 5 minutes into the show
> 
> ready to cast my vote for Brooklyn Nine-Nine





Langree said:


> Now, I thought Dads showed promise, it wasn't as tasteless as they made it out to be. But I like raunchy off color humor.


And this is why they actually have ratings. One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

My wife & I just watched both. B99 was pretty funny, but neither of us are Andy Samberg fans. He's just too goofy silly. But the show is so funny, we'll stick with it.

Dads? The unfunniest show I've ever seen. Forget the raunch, not an issue. It just wasn't funny. Ever. Ok, maybe a line or two. But the laugh track just kept roaring at lines that weren't even jokes, they were setup lines! The straight lines were said, and the laugh track blasted away.:down::down:


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Fox announced they have cancelled dads and 9 9 to be replaced by 2 episodes of Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

cannonz said:


> Fox announced they have cancelled dads and 9 9 to be replaced by 2 episodes of Mac and C.H.E.E.S.E


Don't bogart that joint!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The reviews for Dads have been abysmal, 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. On the other hand, B99 has received very good reviews, 90% on RT. Hard to lump those two shows together.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Dads? The unfunniest show I've ever seen. Forget the raunch, not an issue. It just wasn't funny. Ever. Ok, maybe a line or two. But the laugh track just kept roaring at lines that weren't even jokes, they were setup lines! The straight lines were said, and the laugh track blasted away.:down::down:


The laugh track was so horrible, I started to wonder if they were deliberately mocking shows with horrible laugh tracks. But probably not...

Other than that, I went into it with no expectations other than it being a pointless FOX style sitcom, which is all it was. And as such, it kinda amused me.

And I think it's the kind of show FOX will keep around regardless, so I suspect it will outlive others in this thread, despite its ratings...


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Please, please, PLEASE let "Dads" be the first show canceled. That was godawful.


----------



## alyssa (Dec 7, 2003)

piling on
Dads=horrible, should be first canceled. i got 5 min's in & canceled it
B99= might actually get me watching a sitcom regularly, *loved* Brower (sp?)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> Didn't laugh at the secret tie, but did at the manscaping comment. Also laughed at the speedo bit at the end, so good writing or not, I thought it was funny.


Ummmm...careful with spoilers. I haven't seen either of these yet.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Dads was just bad. I didn't find it offensive but it just wasn't funny. I agree with others, maybe a funny line or two but that was it. Brenda Song looked good so I'm going to give it one more episode. 

I haven't watched 9-9 yet but I didn't like Parks & Rec so if this is similar I don't think I'll stick with this either. I'll give it a shot though.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I will give Dads one more episode but its worst sin was not being funny


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Langree said:


> From who?! That was utter crap! It was beyond bad, Samberg was his usual cheesy self.
> 
> I actually feel bad for Andre Brauer.





Langree said:


> Now, I thought Dads showed promise, it wasn't as tasteless as they made it out to be. But I like raunchy off color humor.


Wow, i had just the opposite opinion.

After Dads, Brooklyn Nine-Nine looked like Shakespeare.

In reality Dads was awful (despite having 4 actors I usually like) and Brooklyn Nine-Nine was so-so.


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Langree said:


> I guess I just don't by into the "Best detective we have" so let him be a disrespectful idiot. Thing.


It's a tried and true formula. I liked B99


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Langree said:


> Love MASH, this is no MASH.
> 
> Hawkeye may have disobeyed orders etc, but he was never the fool in the throne room.


WTF you talking about, he was constantly the fool in the throne room. He just had time to show his serious side and his great skill in multiple episodes/seasons.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Thank you FOX I just cleared up 1 hour 7-8PM on my TiVo. 

Might come back to Brooklyn 99 again later if it's still around, but won't SP it.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Now I unserstand why Will Ferrell still gets work.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Fahtrim said:


> WTF you talking about, he was constantly the fool in the throne room. He just had time to show his serious side and his great skill in multiple episodes/seasons.


Read my followup.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Dads got a 2.1 and Brooklyn Nine-Nine a 2.5. Neither is in danger of imminent cancellation. Fox's lowest scoring show last night was The Mindy Project which got a 1.9.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Azlen said:


> Dads got a 2.1 and Brooklyn Nine-Nine a 2.5. Neither is in danger of imminent cancellation. Fox's lowest scoring show last night was The Mindy Project which got a 1.9.


Ouch, so where did they go after B99?

I never got into the Mindy Project so almost never watch it.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Please, please, PLEASE let "Dads" be the first show canceled. That was godawful.


Agreed. That was almost painful to watch.

I did enjoy Brooklyn 99, but I had a moment when the new Captain said "You know my history" and I said out loud "You used to drive a submarine and refused to nuke Pakistan?", but I guess we can't be quite that absurd....


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Langree said:


> Ouch, so where did they go after B99?
> 
> I never got into the Mindy Project so almost never watch it.


Looks like there was an audience switch after B99 as New Girl had a 2.9 rating but an overall smaller audience than B99. 5.56 million for New Girl vs 6 million for B99. Everyone jumped ship on the Mindy Project though. I guess James Franco wasn't much of a draw.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Langree said:


> Now I unserstand why Will Ferrell still gets work.


Throwing out veiled insults is not going to win anyone over to your point of view.

Neither show was great but i thought Dads was just awful and far more juvenile than B99.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Maui said:


> Throwing out veiled insults is not going to win anyone over to your point of view.
> 
> Neither show was great but i thought Dads was just awful and far more juvenile than B99.


I'm not looking to shift anyone's point of view.

Ferrell is a one trick pony, as is Samberg, which to my amazement there is an audience for.

The only difference is I enjoy The Legend of Ron Burgundy, I have yet to find anything even tolerable by Samberg.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Langree said:


> I'm not looking to shift anyone's point of view.
> 
> Ferrell is a one trick pony, as is Samberg, which to my amazement there is an audience for.
> 
> The only difference is I enjoy The Legend of Ron Burgundy, I have yet to find anything even tolerable by Samberg.


There has probably been hundreds of "One Trick Ponies" as you've said over the years who have been immensely popular. The Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplain, Jerry Lewis are three that come to mind off the top of my head. I don't know why you're amazed at the popularity of some one trick ponies. I'm not a Farrell fan, but I don't doubt there are people who like his type of humor. Same as Samberg.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> There has probably been hundreds of "One Trick Ponies" as you've said over the years who have been immensely popular.* The Marx Brothers, Charlie Chaplain, Jerry Lewis *are three that come to mind off the top of my head. I don't know why you're amazed at the popularity of some one trick ponies. I'm not a Farrell fan, but I don't doubt there are people who like his type of humor. Same as Samberg.


There is a difference between "Schtick" and one trick. Each of the ones you listed showed a flexibility and depth to their characters, and abilities, especially Chaplin and Lewis.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Langree said:


> There is a difference between "Schtick" and one trick. Each of the ones you listed showed a flexibility and depth to their characters, and abilities, especially Chaplin and Lewis.


You could say the same for Farrell as well. I don't know Samberg's work all that well to make that assumption. All of the ones I listed essentially play the same "character", which is what Farrell does. Each movie that character is nuanced to fit the movie.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Langree said:


> I'm not looking to shift anyone's point of view.
> 
> Ferrell is a one trick pony, as is Samberg, which to my amazement there is an audience for.
> 
> The only difference is I enjoy The Legend of Ron Burgundy, I have yet to find anything even tolerable by Samberg.


Well, in my defense, other than a guest star role and Parks and Rec I am not sure I have seem Samburg in anything before this.

Of course I am not really defending B99 either as it was just ok in my book and probably won't earn a season pass.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

The one with Mags and Beau Bridges...

The Millers.

"Ho hah! Another wisecrack from Mom!"


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Langree said:


> Now, I thought Dads showed promise, it wasn't as tasteless as they made it out to be. But I like raunchy off color humor.


I'm _not_ defending it.. I don't think it was quite HORRIBLE like others are saying, but it wasn't very good. Ironically (not sure if that really qualifies) about the only things that were funny were the jokes everyone was up in arms about. The rest was junk.

I hope Seth Green is cashing a big big big paycheck. He seems to generally be a hard worker and a smart guy. Why would he do this besides a paycheck? (He was also in the so-bad-it-was-funny-but-probably-only-because-I-saw-it-at-a-free-screening-early-in-the-morning "Old Dogs" too.)

BTW, I will still give it another ep or two, BECAUSE of Seth Green. I'm again trying to 'pare down' the new shows I watch though, so I'll probably give it a shorter tryout than usual, unless some other die quickly too.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> I'm _not_ defending it.. I don't think it was quite HORRIBLE like others are saying, but it wasn't very good. Ironically (not sure if that really qualifies) about the only things that were funny were the jokes everyone was up in arms about. The rest was junk.
> 
> I hope Seth Green is cashing a big big big paycheck. He seems to generally be a hard worker and a smart guy. Why would he do this besides a paycheck? (He was also in the so-bad-it-was-funny-but-probably-only-because-I-saw-it-at-a-free-screening-early-in-the-morning "Old Dogs" too.)
> 
> BTW, I will still give it another ep or two, BECAUSE of Seth Green. I'm again trying to 'pare down' the new shows I watch though, so I'll probably give it a shorter tryout than usual, unless some other die quickly too.


There were somethings that just annoyed me big time with that show. One was the continuity of some things (which I won't get into here...not a spoiler thread), and the other...the laugh track was just obnoxiously loud and misplaced.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Well, I'd actually be interested to hear in what continuity things you noticed.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> Well, I'd actually be interested to hear in what continuity things you noticed.


I'll spoilerize



Spoiler



I got the impression that the two main characters were best friends and maybe since they were kids. Then they go through this whole "compare our dads thing". Well wouldn't best friends already KNOW these things about each others fathers? Second the fathers get together like best friends, but I never got the impression, in the way the main characters talked about them that they even knew each other. It was all very weird and didn't make a whole lof ot sense to me.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

I didn't think anything could beat out 'Dads' for the worst new show but "The Goldbergs" managed to do so handily.

I couldn't even finish watching the pilot.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

cannonz said:


> Brooklyn 9 9 and dads will be gone soon.


well - those were the first two cancelled from my TiVo.
Yikes. i couldn't get through either of them.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Dads and Moms both gone.

I watched a little of The Goldbergs when they had the pilot on abc.com. Maybe the family struck home somewhat, but I liked the first 10 minutes I saw. But I think I'll probably be in the minority.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

No way Mom is one of the first to go. I have a feeling CBS will do anything to keep Chuck Lorre happy. They'll cut his show more slack than others. 

But I am biased as I really enjoyed the show.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Based on ratings thus far, Lucky 7 is an initial contender. It premiered to a 1.3 and if it drops below a 1.0 next week it could be gone shortly thereafter.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I have a winner! My first deleted SP tonight. _Back in the Game_.

Was that really James Caan? WTH happened?


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Dads and Moms both gone.


Dads gone of my list.
Got halfway through the first episode and just couldn't continue watching.
I guess I'm just getting too old for that kind of comedy?
Brooklyn 99 is close, but I'm going to give it a couple more episodes just because of Braugher.
I have no idea who any of the other actors are.

Had high hopes with Seth and Martin, but I guess they're just better in small doses as guest stars.
Same with Mr. Ribisi, guest star roles only please.

Saw Mom in bits and pieces while I was airing it, but haven't sat down and watched.
Really hard to watch TV when you are trying to keep it on the air.

phox


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Is this thread supposed to be about the first show that gets canceled by a network or the first show that you delete from your season pass list? I thought it was supposed to be the former but it seems like it's more of the latter.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Azlen said:


> Based on ratings thus far, Lucky 7 is an initial contender. It premiered to a 1.3 and if it drops below a 1.0 next week it could be gone shortly thereafter.


With that rating it is very likely. I watched the premiere and while I did not hate it I did not think it was very good. Based on the previews of what is to come this season it did not look like it was taking path I wanted to follow.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Azlen said:


> Is this thread supposed to be about the first show that gets canceled by a network or the first show that you delete from your season pass list? I thought it was supposed to be the former but it seems like it's more of the latter.


If I stop watching a show, doesn't it cease to exist?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Azlen said:


> Is this thread supposed to be about the first show that gets canceled by a network or the first show that you delete from your season pass list? I thought it was supposed to be the former but it seems like it's more of the latter.


Discussions evolve.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Maui said:


> ...I watched the premiere and while I did not hate it I did not think it was very good...


+1

Though my wife liked it and was going to continue watching.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Azlen said:


> *Is this thread supposed to be about the first show that gets canceled by a network *or the first show that you delete from your season pass list? I thought it was supposed to be the former but it seems like it's more of the latter.


It starts out as predictions on what gets whacked first. Based on our amazing TCF prognosticating ability. Then it turns into "I watched xxx and can't believe it will survive long". And as we individually start killing SPs, we throw those into the mix.

Actually, for a TCF TV thread (any TCF thread, really), this particular one has stayed truer to topic than most.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> If I stop watching a show, doesn't it cease to exist?


If you stop watching and yet continue to read & participate in the threads (a la Under The Dumb), is it dead, alive or in Purgatory?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Lucky 7 gets my vote. Worst-rated fall drama pilot in ABC history. And what a dramatic dropoff from the ratings at the beginning of the night (4.6) to the end of the night (1.3). Those comedies in between sure didn't do their job of holding the lead in.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

_Back in the Game_ probably won't last the season, but I really want _Dads_ to go first.

Not even going to try _The Millers._


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

Langree said:


> Ferrell is a one trick pony, as is Samberg, which to my amazement there is an audience for.
> 
> The only difference is I enjoy The Legend of Ron Burgundy, I have yet to find anything even tolerable by Samberg.


Did you ever watch "Stranger than Fiction" or "Everything Must Go" ? Ferrell may choose to do (usually hilarious) slapstick comedy but he can do drama as well.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Based on ratings thus far, Lucky 7 is an initial contender. It premiered to a 1.3 and if it drops below a 1.0 next week it could be gone shortly thereafter.


Just watch the first episode, sort of enjoy this show.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Just watch the first episode, sort of enjoy this show.


A rousing endorsement


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Johncv said:


> Just watch the first episode, sort of enjoy this show.


Based on the less than enthusiastic reviews and its impending likelihood of cancellation, I think I'll pass.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Azlen said:


> Is this thread supposed to be about the first show that gets canceled by a network or the first show that you delete from your season pass list? I thought it was supposed to be the former but it seems like it's more of the latter.


it should be about which show gets cancelled by a network first 
that makes a lot more sense than "first show I stop watching"


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

You guys are cracking me up...

Meanwhile, I don't watch comedies (because they aren't funny) and based on your comments I continue to miss out on absolutely nothing.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Maui said:


> No way Mom is one of the first to go. I have a feeling CBS will do anything to keep Chuck Lorre happy. They'll cut his show more slack than others.
> 
> But I am biased as I really enjoyed the show.


Didn't love it, very much below the other Chuck Lorre shows... yes, including 2.5 men. (and he didn't do a title card at the end? Though I admit I haven't been pausing & reading those regularly for a long time, and yes I know they're on the web... and yes, I was one of those who used to pause the _VCR_ for them.)

I still don't know if I've seen Anna Faris *in* much of anything. I checked out her imdb listing, and sure I've seen a bunch (esp her 5 episodes of "Friends"), but I think I recognize her just because she's a celebrity, not from anything she's actually done.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

nyny523 said:


> You guys are cracking me up...
> 
> Meanwhile, I don't watch comedies (because they aren't funny) and based on your comments I continue to miss out on absolutely nothing.


Maybe being a fan of the NY sports franchises has just sucked all of the humor out of you.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

"Lucky 7" is this year's winner!

http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/10/04/lucky7-cancelled/


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'll bet Ironside will be close behind.

Please please PLEASE have Dads follow suit.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Neenahboy said:


> "Lucky 7" is this year's winner!
> 
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/10/04/lucky7-cancelled/


Replaced by repeats of Scandal. The Tuesday ABC lineup has zero continuity.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> I'll bet Ironside will be close behind.
> 
> Please please PLEASE have Dads follow suit.


Dads is at least better than Mom.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

mattack said:


> Dads is at least better than Mom.


not by a longshot


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

We are Men is show number 2 to be canceled. Big Bang reruns for the rest of Oct and Mike and Molly comes back in November.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...odes-mike-molly-to-return-in-november/208032/


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Word of advice to actors in Hollywood: do NOT take a role on a show with Jerry O'Connell.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

lambertman in Post #5 said:


> I'm going with "We Are Men".


Da*n you Lucky 7!!!!


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Lucky 7 I never got around to watching and We are Men I am caught up on and sad to see it go, but.... yeah... now I am over it.  I need to start researching the shows that have decent/good ratings and a high chance of sticking around for a season as most new shows I have been letting pile up while I stick to the mostly tried and true when I could increase the amount I watch to clean up some of the backlog that is now forming.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Surprised with We are men, I thought Mom would be the 1st CBS Monday comedy to go.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Surprised with We are men, I thought Mom would be the 1st CBS Monday comedy to go.


Chuck Lorre show, CBS doesn't want to piss him off.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

True dat


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

And continuing what seems to be a trend with FOX, they've now canceled two shows before they even begin. One was a midseason addition to FOX's Animation Domination block, a series that was to be called "Murder Police." No episodes were completed in their entirety were made before FOX pulled the plug.

The other was a midseason comedy, "Us & Them." The pilot and an additional 6 episodes were filmed before the network asked for a temporary production halt, which has now become a permanent halt. Cast have been released to seek other employment.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Word of advice to actors in Hollywood: do NOT take a role on a show with Jerry O'Connell.


They do it to meet his wife


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> And continuing what seems to be a trend with FOX, they've now canceled two shows before they even begin. One was a midseason addition to FOX's Animation Domination block, a series that was to be called "Murder Police." No episodes were completed in their entirety were made before FOX pulled the plug.
> 
> The other was a midseason comedy, "Us & Them." The pilot and an additional 6 episodes were filmed before the network asked for a temporary production halt, which has now become a permanent halt. Cast have been released to seek other employment.


Make one wonder how many actors go from one show after another that never see an air date. Also, how many warehouses are fill with shows that never air.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Johncv said:


> Make one wonder how many actors go from one show after another that never see an air date. Also, how many warehouses are fill with shows that never air.


I've always thought a cool idea would be an anthology show that simply collects shows that never make it to air. Presentation packages, failed pilots, or shows ordered to series but canceled before they air.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I've always thought a cool idea would be an anthology show that simply collects shows that never make it to air. Presentation packages, failed pilots, or shows ordered to series but canceled before they air.


Netflix should add another category "Failed pilots. series canceled never air"


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I've always thought a cool idea would be an anthology show that simply collects shows that never make it to air. Presentation packages, failed pilots, or shows ordered to series but canceled before they air.


Yeah I have wanted that forever. Would be awesome to have a glimpse into all the failed pilots. Imagine that binge watching session. I wonder why most of that stuff is buried forever.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> mattack said:
> 
> 
> > Dads is at least better than Mom.
> ...


I agree, they both equally horrendous.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

marksman said:


> Yeah I have wanted that forever. Would be awesome to have a glimpse into all the failed pilots. Imagine that binge watching session. I wonder why most of that stuff is buried forever.


While there may be a gem here and there, I think that for the most part watching failed pilots would be tortuous. Seeing how bad some of the pilots are in shows that get made must mean that a good chunk of the failed pilots would be downright awful.


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

There was one failed pilot that was later aired, it was about Sherlock Holmes who awakes in modern times, comes across very funny. It was made by ones behind Murder She Wrote, cause the secretary in the office was reading the new Jessica Fletcher novel.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Occasionally there are network shows about failed pilots, IIRC I saw one in the last couple of years.

Apparently there was a "CSI"-style pilot with Marg Helgenburger & William Petersen made about a decade before CSI aired.



marksman said:


> Yeah I have wanted that forever. Would be awesome to have a glimpse into all the failed pilots. Imagine that binge watching session. I wonder why most of that stuff is buried forever.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

Seems like someone would be smart enough to put pilots they make online, so when they pitch to the networks they can show the good response to them.

If they don't get good responses, then the sooner they know about that the sooner they can quit wasting time on them and move on to the next project.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> While there may be a gem here and there, I think that for the most part watching failed pilots would be tortuous. Seeing how bad some of the pilots are in shows that get made must mean that a good chunk of the failed pilots would be downright awful.


I agree, they'd stink for the most part, but, the fun thing would be seeing actors we know now in those failed pilots. Kind of a "before they were stars" type thing.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

unitron said:


> Seems like someone would be smart enough to put pilots they make online, so when they pitch to the networks they can show the good response to them.
> 
> If they don't get good responses, then the sooner they know about that the sooner they can quit wasting time on them and move on to the next project.


I wonder if there are legal reasons against it? It seems like a natural this day and age to throw something up online and push it on Facebook or Twitter.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

unitron said:


> Seems like someone would be smart enough to put pilots they make online, so when they pitch to the networks they can show the good response to them. If they don't get good responses, then the sooner they know about that the sooner they can quit wasting time on them and move on to the next project.





Steveknj said:


> I wonder if there are legal reasons against it? It seems like a natural this day and age to throw something up online and push it on Facebook or Twitter.


That's not how it works. Creators make their pitches to the networks and then if the pitch is accepted, the network pays for the pilot, and therefore owns the rights to the pilot. So the network gets to distribute it as they see fit, and the creators have no control over it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's not how it works. Creators make their pitches to the networks and then if the pitch is accepted, the network pays for the pilot, and therefore owns the rights to the pilot. So the network gets to distribute it as they see fit, and the creators have no control over it.


You are right of course. I wasn't thinking.

Production costs are probably too high to do a decent looking pilot without network backing...although I suppose a studio might think it is if they are very high on something.


----------



## Marco (Sep 19, 2000)

Johncv said:


> Netflix should add another category "Failed pilots. series canceled never air"


I'd pay to see Fox Force Five.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I've always thought a cool idea would be an anthology show that simply collects shows that never make it to air. Presentation packages, failed pilots, or shows ordered to series but canceled before they air.


Not exactly related to this, but Adam Carolla has ranted several times about how the TV execs never go back and look at the pilots that were tossed OUT after the shows that do make air are canned quickly. Yeah, he's doing it somewhat out of self interest since he's had a few shows not made, and the shows that WERE made cancelled quickly. (One of Jenna Elfman's shows is the only one I can think of, but I can't figure out which one.. I thought it was "Accidentally on Purpose", but that had 18 episodes that all aired.. Maybe his rant included "one season shows", not just VERY quickly cancelled shows like I (mis-)remembered?)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I'm pretty sure I went through and cancelled my "The Millers" SP over the weekend. It's not a good show, but I like Will Arnett, so remember flipflopping about nuking it.. Finally did (AFAIR), plus cleaned up some old dead SPs at the top of my SP list (to catch burnoffs).


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> *I'm pretty sure I went through and cancelled my "The Millers" SP over the weekend. It's not a good show*, but I like Will Arnett, so remember flipflopping about nuking it.. Finally did (AFAIR), plus cleaned up some old dead SPs at the top of my SP list (to catch burnoffs).


Agree. I quit recording it. Horrible show IMO.


----------



## Sadara (Sep 27, 2006)

I haven't watched a single episode of any of the new shows. I'm willing to wait until I know if they are getting cancelled or if they are staying around. I don't want to put any time into a show that is getting dumped. Oh and it seems to me like this time last year we saw a lot more cancelled shows by now.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Sadara said:


> I haven't watched a single episode of any of the new shows. I'm willing to wait until I know if they are getting cancelled or if they are staying around. I don't want to put any time into a show that is getting dumped. Oh and it seems to me like this time last year we saw a lot more cancelled shows by now.


Of course, as I say, if everyone did like you did, NO show would ever make it. Not watching any of the new shows because they might get cancelled is a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Of course, as I say, if everyone did like you did, NO show would ever make it. Not watching any of the new shows because they might get cancelled is a self fulfilling prophecy.


Well luckily for you then, not everyone watches tv like sadara and I do. I don't know why you feel the need to chastise people who do. Unless you are a Nielsen family and watch tv live, how and when you decide to watch a show means zero to the show's ratings.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Well luckily for you then, not everyone watches tv like sadara and I do. I don't know why you feel the need to chastise people who do. Unless you are a Nielsen family and watch tv live, how and when you decide to watch a show means zero to the show's ratings.


I don't mean to chastise you, but I think this trend of saving things and not watching unless ratings are good is a self fulfilling prophecy. If you're doing it or sadara is doing it, I'm sure some Neilsen families are doing it as well.

You have every right to watch however you choose, but don't be surprised if some stuff you like gets cancelled because people are "saving"

On this note, I wonder why Nielsen hasn't made a deal with TiVo or the Cable/Sat companies to collect data from those DVRs directly.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Well luckily for you then, not everyone watches tv like sadara and I do. I don't know why you feel the need to chastise people who do. Unless you are a Nielsen family and watch tv live, how and when you decide to watch a show means zero to the show's ratings.


If you don't want people to comment on how you watch television then don't post it to a message board.

That being said, it's true that if you aren't a Nielsen family then watching it or not doesn't matter and I would hope that people who are Nielsen families would realize they have an influence over what makes it and what doesn't so they wouldn't do that as much.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> If you don't want people to comment on how you watch television then don't post it to a message board.
> 
> That being said, it's true that if you aren't a Nielsen family then watching it or not doesn't matter and I would hope that people who are Nielsen families would realize they have an influence over what makes it and what doesn't so they wouldn't do that as much.


The thing is....if a Nielsen family is influenced by the fact they are a Nielsen family and watch TV different than they normally would, how accurate or the ratings? If the norm is now saving up shows until they get cancelled and it reflects in the ratings, then those ratings are going to be horrible and the show will be cancelled, or, they will have to figure out a brand new ratings system, and a brand new way of advertising that isn't based on the 30 second spot if ads are not being seen right away. (and they probably should anyway, today's system is antiquated, and it's only going to get worse).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> On this note, I wonder why Nielsen hasn't made a deal with TiVo or the Cable/Sat companies to collect data from those DVRs directly.


Nielsen is very careful to ensure that the homes they select to be part of their sample are scientifically-selected to match the demographics and characteristics of the population those people are supposed to represent. This is how they can get a sample size of several thousand to "accurately" reflect the viewing habits of over 100 million people.

If they were to simply monitor all TiVos or all cable DVRs, then that would skew the data toward those households that are either affluent enough or tech-savvy enough to get a TiVo/DVR. That wouldn't be statistically sound. It would provide valuable data, and I'm sure TiVo makes that data available for sale. But it wouldn't be equivalent to what Nielsen does, because it wouldn't be a statistically-accurate sample.



Azlen said:


> That being said, it's true that if you aren't a Nielsen family then watching it or not doesn't matter and I would hope that people who are Nielsen families would realize they have an influence over what makes it and what doesn't so they wouldn't do that as much.


See my previous comment. Nielsen goes to great lengths to find Nielsen families that are just your average, everyday family. That means that if there is a statistically-significant number of people out there doing what sadara and WT suggest, then it's happening within the Nielsen sample as well, and therefore hurting the ratings for those shows.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Azlen said:


> If you don't want people to comment on how you watch television then don't post it to a message board.


He can comment all he wants, I just don't understand the need to go around (in more than one thread) telling people they are watching tv wrong. I don't see what good that does for anyone other then the person saying it trying to make them selves feel that they are better than others.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sadara said:


> I haven't watched a single episode of any of the new shows. I'm willing to wait until I know if they are getting cancelled or if they are staying around. I don't want to put any time into a show that is getting dumped. Oh and it seems to me like this time last year we saw a lot more cancelled shows by now.


According to this article, which is dated Nov. 12, 2012, there were only two shows canceled by that point last season. So with two canceled so far this fall, we seem to be right on pace. If anything else gets canned within the next few weeks, we'll actually be ahead of last year's pace.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nielsen is very careful to ensure that the homes they select to be part of their sample are scientifically-selected to match the demographics and characteristics of the population those people are supposed to represent. This is how they can get a sample size of several thousand to "accurately" reflect the viewing habits of over 100 million people.
> 
> If they were to simply monitor all TiVos or all cable DVRs, then that would skew the data toward those households that are either affluent enough or tech-savvy enough to get a TiVo/DVR. That wouldn't be statistically sound. It would provide valuable data, and I'm sure TiVo makes that data available for sale. But it wouldn't be equivalent to what Nielsen does, because it wouldn't be a statistically-accurate sample.


I get that, but wouldn't it be valuable data to sell? I'm sure they could find an algorithm to take into account the percentage of home with DVRs and go from there. Or just sell it as separate info, outside the ratings.

Honestly, I still have a hard time accepting that the Nieslen ratings today accurately reflect what people are watching, and when. I know advertisers only care about what's watch live, but as we can see in the ratings, and with people's viewing habits changing, we might wind up with a VERY small portion of TV relevant to what advertisers want. Which means more NFL and reality shows like AI or The Voice which tend to be watched live.

The other option is to disable FF/30 Second skip on everyone's DVRs. Then time becomes less relevant, except for time sensitive advertising (movies, new product releases etc.)



> See my previous comment. Nielsen goes to great lengths to find Nielsen families that are just your average, everyday family. That means that if there is a statistically-significant number of people out there doing what WT suggests, then it's happening within the Nielsen sample as well, and therefore hurting the ratings for those shows.


And that's my point. The trend to "saving" shows will lead to what would have been good shows being cancelled prematurely. How does the TV model change to reflect this?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> See my previous comment. Nielsen goes to great lengths to find Nielsen families that are just your average, everyday family. That means that if there is a statistically-significant number of people out there doing what sadara and WT suggest, then it's happening within the Nielsen sample as well, and therefore hurting the ratings for those shows.


People are still going to be influenced by the observer effect. People will knowingly or unknowingly change their behavior when they know they are being watched. How much of that happens when it comes to DVR saving we will probably never know.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nielsen is very careful to ensure that the homes they select to be part of their sample are scientifically-selected to match the demographics and characteristics of the population those people are supposed to represent. This is how they can get a sample size of several thousand to "accurately" reflect the viewing habits of over 100 million people.


The problem is, the Nielsen people KNOW they're Nielsen people, which makes them not a scientific sample no matter how well they otherwise align. Their behavior will change to whatever degree knowing they are Nielsen people (e.g. there are anecdotal stories of Nielsen families leaving certain shows on that nobody is watching for the sake of the ratings).

TiVo does sell their viewership data, and Nielsen does use DVR data, and networks do factor in DVR numbers, although I don't know how it all goes together. Everybody, including the networks, have always know that Nielsen is deeply flawed. I guess there's just nothing that's been proven to be better.


Azlen said:


> People are still going to be influenced by the observer effect. People will knowingly or unknowingly change their behavior when they know they are being watched. How much of that happens when it comes to DVR saving we will probably never know.


Oops, didn't see this one when I typed the first part of this post.

I suspect DVR numbers are far more accurate (in terms of what's being watched) and, at least at this point, far less representative than Nielsen numbers. As more and more people get and use DVRs, I suspect Nielsen will become less and less relevant.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem is, the Nielsen people KNOW they're Nielsen people, which makes them not a scientific sample no matter how well they otherwise align. Their behavior will change to whatever degree knowing they are Nielsen people (e.g. there are anecdotal stories of Nielsen families leaving certain shows on that nobody is watching for the sake of the ratings).
> 
> TiVo does sell their viewership data, and Nielsen does use DVR data, and networks do factor in DVR numbers, although I don't know how it all goes together. Everybody, including the networks, have always know that Nielsen is deeply flawed. I guess there's just nothing that's been proven to be better.


I know of one anecdotal story where my friend's uncle was a family and my friend asked him to "watch" the NHL game that was on that Sunday, while the family was out. I'm sure this happens all the time. I assume that Nielsen takes some of this into account?

That's why I am starting to think that it might be better put a chip into every cable/satellite receiver/DVR (and digital cable box) and maybe in TVs as well for those with direct connections and off people the option to "opt out". So many other things we do these days work on the same principle. Search Google and you'll see it. This would be a much more accurate portrayal of what is really happening. I for one would opt in provided I feel the safeguards to hide my identity are there.

This is 2013 not 1964.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> You are right of course. I wasn't thinking. Production costs are probably too high to do a decent looking pilot without network backing...although I suppose a studio might think it is if they are very high on something.


Although we may see some projects crowd funding pilots that later end up as series/


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Sadara said:


> I haven't watched a single episode of any of the new shows. I'm willing to wait until I know if they are getting cancelled or if they are staying around. I don't want to put any time into a show that is getting dumped. Oh and it seems to me like this time last year we saw a lot more cancelled shows by now.


I usually do that but this year I managed to watch both episodes of Lucky 7 and We are Men before they got cut. I had grown more and more reluctant to watch new shows at all and this year I decided I would just watch them and keep watching the ones I like or might like until they get killed. That being said if there was any serial content out there I might not be watching it. Not sure if Sleepy Hollow is serial I could not make it through first episode.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem is, the Nielsen people KNOW they're Nielsen people, which makes them not a scientific sample no matter how well they otherwise align. Their behavior will change to whatever degree knowing they are Nielsen people (e.g. there are anecdotal stories of Nielsen families leaving certain shows on that nobody is watching for the sake of the ratings).


This effect is still called the Heisenberg effect by many people even though it's not exactly what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says. Still it was Heisenberg's claim to fame before he started cooking meth.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> That's why I am starting to think that it might be better put a chip into every cable/satellite receiver/DVR (and digital cable box) and maybe in TVs as well for those with direct connections and off people the option to "opt out". So many other things we do these days work on the same principle. Search Google and you'll see it. This would be a much more accurate portrayal of what is really happening. I for one would opt in provided I feel the safeguards to hide my identity are there.


The problem is, they don't take just a count of "all people"; it needs to be broken down by demographics. Remember, ratings and share are almost always reported as "in the demographic" (ages 18-49?). They need to have some information about each viewer.

Another problem is, with a cable box, there's no way to tell if someone is actually watching a show; the box can be on but the TV itself can be off.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Even if the tv is on it doesn't mean anyone is awake. 

Maybe the best solution would be to use the same techniques used by political pollsters before elections. They are usually pretty close to what happens (with their "+- X%" margin of error).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Maybe the best solution would be to use the same techniques used by political pollsters before elections. They are usually pretty close to what happens (with their "+- X%" margin of error).


They're also pretty labor-intensive...


----------



## Michael S (Jan 12, 2004)

Johncv said:


> Netflix should add another category "Failed pilots. series canceled never air"


So they should bring back Brilliant But Cancelled.  I remember a few years ago one of networks had a special that showed clips from unaired pilots.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Even if the tv is on it doesn't mean anyone is awake.
> 
> Maybe the best solution would be to use the same techniques used by political pollsters before elections. They are usually pretty close to what happens (with their "+- X%" margin of error).


Fundamentally they do use the same principles. Problem is that an election is a one time event where television viewership is measured continuously, so the way data is gathered has to be very different.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> On this note, I wonder why Nielsen hasn't made a deal with TiVo or the Cable/Sat companies to collect data from those DVRs directly.


They have because we got call a long, long time ago to be precisely this. Because they just wanted to harvest data already collected by our TiVo, we didn't get a lot of details (like when we started being a family or stopped).

I DO know that DVR-Nielsen family data is not as valued as traditional Nielsen family data because there is an assumption that DVR families will save stuff (and they track what is watched when and how close it is to live) and, more importantly, there is an assumption that DVR families will skip or >> through commercials. Remember, the primary reason that television exists and that Nielsen tracks what is watched is to know where to sell ad space and for how much, so people who aren't watching ads aren't useful.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> ...we might wind up with a VERY small portion of TV relevant to what advertisers want. Which means more NFL and reality shows like AI or The Voice which tend to be watched live.


The networks are not in the television business to create high quality programming. They are in the television business to make money. If they happen to produce a quality product anyway, that's just a happy side effect.

Reality television became huge because it can be made for CHEAP. There has been some movement away from reality TV because the networks later realized that it does not have any potential for long-term residuals from syndication.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I see articles all the time that talk about what the DVR ratings are (for various lengths of days post-show)... they are gathering that data.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Their behavior will change to whatever degree knowing they are Nielsen people (e.g. there are anecdotal stories of Nielsen families leaving certain shows on that nobody is watching for the sake of the ratings).


There is apparently a rather famous case of a documentary getting absolutely spectacular ratings once because it aired in prime time and was about.....wait for it.....Nielsen families.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Ancillarily relatedly, Spouse and I quite frequently watch pilots (mostly for dramas) and turn off the TV saying "Brilliant! Fantastic! It'll be cancelled within 6 episodes." It's pretty much always for the same reason----someone decided to be artistic and made a real lovely piece of television that will cost an INSANE amount of money to keep in production and while the networks (rather bafflingly) will throw buckets of money at high-concept pilots, they seem to be continually surprised that these don't translate into ratings blockbusters and quickly get tired of paying that bill.

Pushing Daisies is the textbook example, but another good one is Pan-Am (you can almost see the pitch in your head "It's like Mad Men but with airlines!"). Mad Men was produceable because it happened primarily an office. Build the sets, pull the costumes (mostly men's suits which have not changed discernably in 60 years), and done! Even in a digital age, is anyone really surprised that a show that was not only a period piece (so needed costumes that couldn't come off-the-rack), but involved large pieces of aviation equipment and set in a whole bunch of very famous locations all over the globe, couldn't begin to pull the ratings needed to pay that production bill? Stock footage is really only going to get you so far....

For this year's wild budgetary over-reach, my money is on the CW's "Reign". Period piece (with its own distinctive look, so that's way more costumes you're building instead of renting), set in an exotic locale (though I think they're trying to take advantage of the film incentives that lured Game of Thrones to N. Ireland), and the writing is showing early signs of being a complete and utter train wreck. Also, frankly, it's on the CW, which puts it at a ratings disadvantage right there. My prediction is that it'll be dead with in the standard 6 episodes The last pre-1800 prime time network show that I remember was Covington Cross and that made it all the way to 7 episodes aired.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

WhiskeyTango said:


> Well luckily for you then, not everyone watches tv like sadara and I do. I don't know why you feel the need to chastise people who do. Unless you are a Nielsen family and watch tv live, how and when you decide to watch a show means zero to the show's ratings.


Not true anymore.. DVR ratings ARE being counted nowadays, as much as a week later, IIRC.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

mattack said:


> Not true anymore.. DVR ratings ARE being counted nowadays, as much as a week later, IIRC.


They track live + 7 but ad rates are only based on live + 3 and the more live viewers you have the more you can charge. Advertisers suspect that people watching later are much more likely to not watch the commercials.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> The problem is, they don't take just a count of "all people"; it needs to be broken down by demographics. Remember, ratings and share are almost always reported as "in the demographic" (ages 18-49?). They need to have some information about each viewer.
> 
> Another problem is, with a cable box, there's no way to tell if someone is actually watching a show; the box can be on but the TV itself can be off.


All good points. I'm just trying to think of better ways to do this. It just seems today's ratings take into account such a small portion of what is actually being viewed. And yes, I KNOW that that small portion is the only thing that "counts" because of advertising. But that's the conundrum. Don't watch things live and it doesn't get counted because it doesn't matter, so only those shows that are must see live matter. Good, quality shows, are less likely to be made because they may not mesh with desired viewing habits (such as saving up a series to watch all at once, or on a wait and see basis). So how do you best meld today's viewing habits with the standard TV model?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And of course that's something we here at TFC have been talking about since, well, TFC. The old model of commercial-financed programming can't last; technology (and social change) is outstripping it. We're starting to see the outlines of what will replace it, but it's a pretty long, drawn-out, and messy process, and who knows what new developments will Change Everything in the years to come?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Polcamilla said:


> The networks are not in the television business to create high quality programming. They are in the television business to make money. If they happen to produce a quality product anyway, that's just a happy side effect.
> 
> Reality television became huge because it can be made for CHEAP. There has been some movement away from reality TV because the networks later realized that it does not have any potential for long-term residuals from syndication.


Agree, but on the other hand, if people stop watching the crap that's on network TV (and ratings are pretty much telling us they are), how do you get their eyeballs back on those networks without giving them something decent to watch? So the trick is, give them something decent to watch AND give them something they want to watch live. Sports is the obvious choice. And I think a GOOD serialized show CAN keep people watching and want to watch immediately so they aren't spoilerized. I think that's one reason why they keep tryng. They think of shows like Lost which people wanted to watch immediately. And the other thing is to create shows that cater to the older demo who are less likely to timeshift or watch stuff on the internet. But that is much less profitable per add, at least under the current model. Perhaps that is what CBS is doing. They charge a bit less per spot for those shows but they get a lot more eyeballs.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

laria said:


> I see articles all the time that talk about what the DVR ratings are (for various lengths of days post-show)... they are gathering that data.


Yes, DVR numbers are reported by Nielsen, but those numbers come from the same sample of Nielsen households, not from any data collected by TiVo or cable companies.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And of course that's something we here at TFC have been talking about since, well, TFC. The old model of commercial-financed programming can't last; technology (and social change) is outstripping it. We're starting to see the outlines of what will replace it, but it's a pretty long, drawn-out, and messy process, and who knows what new developments will Change Everything in the years to come?


The networks are trying to use technology and social change to push people back into a more live viewing experience. Twitter hash tags, stars live tweeting during a show, second screen apps etc. I really don't know if there is an alternative to the advertising supported model that will not cost the consumers a lot of money and will still provide the budgets and productions values we see today. Sure someone like Netflix can produce a few shows a year that are worth watching but the quantity is quite small compared to a broadcast network.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And of course that's something we here at TFC have been talking about since, well, TFC. The old model of commercial-financed programming can't last; technology (and social change) is outstripping it. We're starting to see the outlines of what will replace it, but it's a pretty long, drawn-out, and messy process, and who knows what new developments will Change Everything in the years to come?


TV Detector Vans?

Actually, my first thought was, some combination of greatly increased carriage fees and encrypted OTA signals that require a subscription of some sort to receive the decryption keys (which, of course, would change on a regular basis and would be receiver box dependent so it would be much harder to "hack the system"). However, this wouldn't solve the problem of networks charging much more for commercial time in special events, like the Super Bowl or the Academy Awards.

Also, if it ever came to this, I wouldn't be surprised if Congress would pass a bill requiring broadcast networks to provide free, unencrypted signals - at which point, I would also not be surprised to see ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC suddenly announce, "We are no longer 'broadcast' networks," but instead become the equivalent of cable channels, and the only OTA stations would have entirely local and syndicated programming.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Azlen said:


> The networks are trying to use technology and social change to push people back into a more live viewing experience. Twitter hash tags, stars live tweeting during a show, second screen apps etc. I really don't know if there is an alternative to the advertising supported model that will not cost the consumers a lot of money and will still provide the budgets and productions values we see today. Sure someone like Netflix can produce a few shows a year that are worth watching but the quantity is quite small compared to a broadcast network.


You're actually seeing some of the changes now, in the carriage battles between the networks, the affiliates and the content carriers. Must carry has gone by the wayside for carriage fees. It's one way they can recoup some of the money they might lose with fewer eyeballs watching ads.

Question for you TV business geeks. Does ESPN make more money from carriage fees than advertising? I know they charge some of the highest rates of any network.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> You're actually seeing some of the changes now, in the carriage battles between the networks, the affiliates and the content carriers. Must carry has gone by the wayside for carriage fees. It's one way they can recoup some of the money they might lose with fewer eyeballs watching ads.
> 
> Question for you TV business geeks. Does ESPN make more money from carriage fees than advertising? I know they charge some of the highest rates of any network.


It appears that they do make more from carrier fees


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> It appears that they do make more from carrier fees


So of course, this is a solution isn't it? Obviously bad for us, because our rates will go up, but it's a consequence of the increase in DVRs and streaming media. Of course part of this is that total subscribers matter more than the demos wouldn't it?


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And of course that's something we here at TFC have been talking about since, well, TFC. The old model of commercial-financed programming can't last; technology (and social change) is outstripping it. We're starting to see the outlines of what will replace it, but it's a pretty long, drawn-out, and messy process, and who knows what new developments will Change Everything in the years to come?


I watched The Crazy Ones directly off the CBS website yesterday and was really surprised that it was the entire episode in HD with absolutely no commercials before, during, or after.

(Then again, it featured a real company again, so many they ARE running that show on product placement $$?)


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> You're actually seeing some of the changes now, in the carriage battles between the networks, the affiliates and the content carriers. Must carry has gone by the wayside for carriage fees. It's one way they can recoup some of the money they might lose with fewer eyeballs watching ads.
> 
> Question for you TV business geeks. Does ESPN make more money from carriage fees than advertising? I know they charge some of the highest rates of any network.


ESPN makes close to a billion (yes, BILLION) dollars a month in carriage fees. No way do they make anything close to that in advertising revenue. There are approximately 100 million cable/satellite subscribers in the U.S. The flagship ESPN channel gets over $5 per month from each of them. ESPN2 gets another dollar or so. Then there's another $0.70 combined with ESPNU, ESPNews, and ESPN Classic. Then there are the fees the cable networks pay to allow their subscribers to access ESPN 3 and the Watch ESPN app. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN is making $700-800 million per month just from subscriber fees.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ESPN makes close to a billion (yes, BILLION) dollars a month in carriage fees. No way do they make anything close to that in advertising revenue.


So in THEIR model, advertising is really just a supplement to their carriage fees. I don't know what their yearly production costs are, but I wonder, if advertising at this point becomes pure profit.

So if I'm the networks, I'm looking at that model and saying, subscriptions are a LOT more important than advertising rates.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ESPN makes close to a billion (yes, BILLION) dollars a month in carriage fees. No way do they make anything close to that in advertising revenue. There are approximately 100 million cable/satellite subscribers in the U.S. The flagship ESPN channel gets over $5 per month from each of them. ESPN2 gets another dollar or so. Then there's another $0.70 combined with ESPNU, ESPNews, and ESPN Classic. Then there are the fees the cable networks pay to allow their subscribers to access ESPN 3 and the Watch ESPN app. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN is making $700-800 million per month just from subscriber fees.


The graph I linked earlier shows a smaller, but still huge number. Closer to $550million if the graph is to be believed.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> So in THEIR model, advertising is really just a supplement to their carriage fees. I don't know what their yearly production costs are, but I wonder, if advertising at this point becomes pure profit.
> 
> So if I'm the networks, I'm looking at that model and saying, subscriptions are a LOT more important than advertising rates.


But you have to have content that subscribers care enough about that they'd drop their subscription if they ever lost that channel. That's what allows ESPN to charge as much as they do. The average carraige fee is about $0.20/month. So it's not like every network can simply jack up their carriage fees and demand that much money. ESPN is in the unique position where they have the cable carriers over a barrel. The carriers know that if they stopped carrying ESPN, a huge number of their subscribers would leave and find another provider. So they pay what ESPN demands. But as we've seen with disputes with other networks, cable providers aren't going to cave to similar demands from content providers who don't have something extremely valuable, like the NFL.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> The graph I linked earlier shows a smaller, but still huge number. Closer to $550million if the graph is to be believed.


If this recent article in Forbes is accurate, then the current rates are $5.54/month for ESPN and $0.70/month for ESPN2. That's $625 million/month. Then you add another $0.70/month for ESPU, News, and Classic, but those aren't as widely distributed, so those probably only bring in another $25 million/month. And who knows how much more the carriers pay to allow their subscribers to access ESPN's web content, but I'm sure ESPN isn't giving that away for free.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> But you have to have content that subscribers care enough about that they'd drop their subscription if they ever lost that channel. That's what allows ESPN to charge as much as they do. The average carraige fee is about $0.20/month. So it's not like every network can simply jack up their carriage fees and demand that much money. ESPN is in the unique position where they have the cable carriers over a barrel. The carriers know that if they stopped carrying ESPN, a huge number of their subscribers would leave and find another provider. So they pay what ESPN demands. But as we've seen with disputes with other networks, cable providers aren't going to cave to similar demands from content providers who don't have something extremely valuable, like the NFL.


I don't know if this is true or not, but STILL isn't the bulk of TV viewed on the OTA networks? If that's the case, if CBS decided to go to a model similar to ESPN they could probably get away with it. Maybe not at ESPN's rates, but I bet something closer. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this now.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I don't know if this is true or not, but STILL isn't the bulk of TV viewed on the OTA networks? If that's the case, if CBS decided to go to a model similar to ESPN they could probably get away with it. Maybe not at ESPN's rates, but I bet something closer. I think we are seeing the beginnings of this now.


You can't really compare CBS to ESPN though. CBS is primarily shown through affiliates that provide a good sized chunk of the programming on those channels. ESPN has no affiliates and is responsible for programming 24x7. When carriage fees are negotiated, it's not always CBS that the carriers are negotiating with, it's the owner of the affiliates. Unless of course, CBS owns the affiliates which is what happened with the Time Warner CBS showdown. In that case only the affiliates that CBS owned were affected by the shut down. Other CBS affiliates on Time Warner were not impacted at all.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Polcamilla said:


> For this year's wild budgetary over-reach, my money is on the CW's "Reign". Period piece (with its own distinctive look, so that's way more costumes you're building instead of renting), set in an exotic locale (though I think they're trying to take advantage of the film incentives that lured Game of Thrones to N. Ireland), and the writing is showing early signs of being a complete and utter train wreck. Also, frankly, it's on the CW, which puts it at a ratings disadvantage right there. My prediction is that it'll be dead with in the standard 6 episodes The last pre-1800 prime time network show that I remember was Covington Cross and that made it all the way to 7 episodes aired.


But it's on the CW therefore the ratings expectation is much lower than it would be on the other OTA networks.
I haven't researched this but it's also possible that they have another income deal to supplement the CW's payments for the show, like overseas distribution deal.

Also consider that the producers of Baywatch (minus the Hoff) have another syndicated drama out (called "SAF3") right now.

Although the show is set on the Malibu area, it's being filmed in Cape Town, South Africa which I am guessing is super cheap to film in.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Nielsen is very careful to ensure that the homes they select to be part of their sample are scientifically-selected to match the demographics and characteristics of the population those people are supposed to represent.


I've read they also do the reverse: if you're a Nielsen viewer and your viewing habits are too different they'll drop you.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> The other option is to disable FF/30 Second skip on everyone's DVRs. Then time becomes less relevant, except for time sensitive advertising (movies, new product releases etc.)


I've been using a DVR since 2002. If you were to eliminate FF/30 Second skip, I would cancel cable TV and only get those shows that I'm truly interested in from iTunes downloaded to my TV with no commercials. I don't watch live TV and as a rule don't watch commercials.


----------



## Polcamilla (Nov 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> But it's on the CW therefore the ratings expectation is much lower than it would be on the other OTA networks.
> I haven't researched this but it's also possible that they have another income deal to supplement the CW's payments for the show, like overseas distribution deal.
> 
> Also consider that the producers of Baywatch (minus the Hoff) have another syndicated drama out (called "SAF3") right now.
> ...


Entertainment Weekly article on Reign

....possibly not safe for work.



ETA: And I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but the USA TODAY felt it was an insult to their intelligence.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Nielsen ratings are only meaningful for households that watch live TV. Shows recorded on a DVR will likely be watched while skipping past commercials. The live TV ratings are needed for advertising purposes. Shows get backing and make money by selling commercial slots. The number of households that record a show are actually detrimental because it means that while people may be watching the show, they aren't watching the commercials. 

The larger number of households watching commercials is what the networks are looking for because that's what's going to attract sponsors. There are undoubtedly shows being aired that are being recorded by a larger audience than being watched live. If the live TV ratings are lower than a competitor in the same time slot, the show with the lower ratings will more likely get canceled even though it may attract a larger audience.

The networks don't care how many people are watching the shows. They care about how many people are watching the commercials. It's all about the bottom line.

I don't honestly know how Nielsen gathers their data, but I assume they use some kind of box that monitors what's being watched on any given TV in the house. I don't know how they would monitor DVR use.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I keep looking at this thread to see if it's back on topic and another show has been cancelled


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I keep looking at this thread to see if it's back on topic and another show has been cancelled


You must be new here...


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

I'm betting the M J Fox Show will be close to the next on the list.

USA Today TV reviewer sums it up best IMO:



> If Michael J. Fox's return to TV ends up being counted as a failure, and that's certainly where it's headed at the moment, the blame should go, not to Fox, but to humor-free episodes like tonight's. It's not just that everyone's behavior is idiotic, though that's annoying. It's that the show seems to have no idea of what it wants to be or what it's trying to say. Oh, there's a message hand-delivered at the end about appreciating your family, but nothing in the episode you've just watched would make you think that's a good idea - and nothing would make you want to spend any more time with this family than you already had. You've got a great cast here, NBC: Find them some writers.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Nielsen ratings are only meaningful for households that watch live TV. Shows recorded on a DVR will likely be watched while skipping past commercials. The live TV ratings are needed for advertising purposes. Shows get backing and make money by selling commercial slots. The number of households that record a show are actually detrimental because it means that while people may be watching the show, they aren't watching the commercials.
> 
> The larger number of households watching commercials is what the networks are looking for because that's what's going to attract sponsors. There are undoubtedly shows being aired that are being recorded by a larger audience than being watched live. If the live TV ratings are lower than a competitor in the same time slot, the show with the lower ratings will more likely get canceled even though it may attract a larger audience.
> 
> ...


We all understand that. But Live TV is becoming less and less relevant, thus breaking this model. One look at the ratings tells you this. So Nielsen or someone needs to look at other things and figure out how to make money from other sources besides traditional advertising. The only thing Nielsen ratings prove these days is there's a lot of advertising money to be made from the NFL and reality shows that gear toward live viewing (because they are either shown live or there are water cooler discussions about them). So we see huge ratings for NFL games and, The Voice, American Idol, The X Factor and other similar shows. There's a few exceptions of course like The Big Bang Theory. And we see larger overall ratings for the demos that advertisers care little about, mostly because they are more likely NOT to have/use other options other than live TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I'm betting the M J Fox Show will be close to the next on the list.
> 
> USA Today TV reviewer sums it up best IMO:


I'm still in but I'm on the brink. I see potential with the show, and MJF is likable in this part, but there is just something missing...oh yeah..the funny!! A few chuckles but mostly it's a miss.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Alfer said:


> I'm betting the M J Fox Show will be close to the next on the list.
> 
> USA Today TV reviewer sums it up best IMO:


No chance. NBC ordered a full 22-episode season before even producing the pilot, so they're all in on this one. Besides, Welcome to the Family and Sean Saves the World are doing worse, so those will surely be canceled before NBC does anything with MJF. And once those other two are canceled, NBC will need MJF to fill their schedule, so I'm betting it stays on the schedule for the entire season.

That said, I stopped watching it partway through the 4th episode. Realized I just don't care.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Ironside just got the boot (and Community got a premiere date).


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I read earlier that The Millers, Moms and Crazy Ones got full season orders from CBS.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Ironside just got the boot


So did _Welcome to the Family_, apparently.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> I read earlier that The Millers, Moms and Crazy Ones got full season orders from CBS.


"Sleepy Hollow" is the first new show to receive a second season order. Also, John Noble joins the cast in three weeks.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Are there more than the usual number of cancellations this early in the season, or is it just that it seems that way to me?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Are there more than the usual number of cancellations this early in the season, or is it just that it seems that way to me?


It could be that this year, they're doing a better job of targeting you specifically...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It could be that this year, they're doing a better job of targeting you specifically...


Heh, not really, I haven't watched any of the canceled series.

Maybe that's it. Maybe they're watching me specifically and canceling anything I don't watch.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Are there more than the usual number of cancellations this early in the season, or is it just that it seems that way to me?


It also felt like there were more new shows this year than typical. I know I have a lot more new shows recorded than returning ones.

Returning shows don't hey cancelled as early in the season.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

As I posted earlier in the thread, there were only two new shows canceled as of Nov 12 last year. So the fact that 4 are already gone this year is definitely more than last year. Not sure how it compares historically.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Not sad to see "Welcome to the Family" go, but there are a few that I would of bet that would be gone 1st. "Back in the Game" and "Dads" come to mind....


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> You can't really compare CBS to ESPN though. CBS is primarily shown through affiliates that provide a good sized chunk of the programming on those channels. ESPN has no affiliates and is responsible for programming 24x7. When carriage fees are negotiated, it's not always CBS that the carriers are negotiating with, it's the owner of the affiliates. Unless of course, CBS owns the affiliates which is what happened with the Time Warner CBS showdown. In that case only the affiliates that CBS owned were affected by the shut down. Other CBS affiliates on Time Warner were not impacted at all.


Yeah the affiliates get the carriage fees. That being said I believe the networks get a percentage of those fees as a pass through.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Ironside just got the boot (and Community got a premiere date).


I should have read this thread yesterday! I was looking at my NP list at noon today trying to decide what I'd watch while I waited for the NFL games to record an hour or so before watching. I figured I'd better get going on _Ironside_ before I get too far behind on it. Spent an hour on the Pilot it turns out I didn't need to spend. Oh well, more space freed up on my DVRs now! :up:


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

JLucPicard said:


> I should have read this thread yesterday! I was looking at my NP list at noon today trying to decide what I'd watch while I waited for the NFL games to record an hour or so before watching. I figured I'd better get going on _Ironside_ before I get too far behind on it. Spent an hour on the Pilot it turns out I didn't need to spend. Oh well, more space freed up on my DVRs now! :up:


And everyone dump on me because I stated that this show was in poor taste trying to be "PC"


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> Nielsen ratings are only meaningful for households that watch live TV. Shows recorded on a DVR will likely be watched while skipping past commercials. The live TV ratings are needed for advertising purposes. Shows get backing and make money by selling commercial slots. The number of households that record a show are actually detrimental because it means that while people may be watching the show, they aren't watching the commercials.
> 
> The larger number of households watching commercials is what the networks are looking for because that's what's going to attract sponsors. There are undoubtedly shows being aired that are being recorded by a larger audience than being watched live. If the live TV ratings are lower than a competitor in the same time slot, the show with the lower ratings will more likely get canceled even though it may attract a larger audience.
> 
> ...


I have been a Nielson family. I felt like a god! For us, it was temporary, so I don't think any family remains a Nielson family permanently; they are doing sampling.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

"Sean Saves the World" has to be next. Flying Boston-Dallas-Vancouver I was twice subjected to NBC? promos of their new shows hosted by this unfunny mugging clown. Cruel & unusual punishment.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

philw1776 said:


> "Sean Saves the World" has to be next. Flying Boston-Dallas-Vancouver I was twice subjected to NBC? promos of their new shows hosted by this unfunny mugging clown. Cruel & unusual punishment.


I think Sean Saves the World is a ton better than Dads. Normally laugh tracks don't bother me but both my wife and I cringed at the one on Dads. We just watched the pilot yesterday. We almost bailed at the 15 minute mark.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

The next couple weeks are big for Sean Saves the World now that the lead-in has changed.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

fmowry said:


> I think Sean Saves the World is a ton better than Dads. Normally laugh tracks don't bother me but both my wife and I cringed at the one on Dads. We just watched the pilot yesterday. We almost bailed at the 15 minute mark.


Dads gets slightly better as it progresses, but not much. I agree that Sean Saves The World is a better show though.

I'm normally a big fan of half hour sitcoms, but the selection this season is pretty bad. Although I kinda liked We Are Men and it got axed after 2 episodes, so go figure.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

philw1776 said:


> "Sean Saves the World" has to be next. Flying Boston-Dallas-Vancouver I was twice subjected to NBC? promos of their new shows hosted by this unfunny mugging clown. Cruel & unusual punishment.


Damn you American Airlines!!!!!!

They used to show CBS programming. But that was a few years ago now.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

I watched the pilot of Ironside a few days ago, and it wasn't really bad, but if they were going to re-make Ironside I wish they had remade Ironside instead of keeping nothing but the name and the wheelchair.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So NBC cancels Ironside and Welcome to the Family, but really has nothing to replace it with. Repeats of SNL and Dateline? If that's the case, why not just let the shows run their course until they have actual replacements? Does it cost too much compared to running reruns?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

The reruns are probably getting higher ratings than the show's they're replacing!


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

They could always move shows they have running on Friday nights, like Grimm or Dracula.

I don't know about Dracula (yet), but I love Grimm!


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> So NBC cancels Ironside and Welcome to the Family, but really has nothing to replace it with. Repeats of SNL and Dateline? If that's the case, why not just let the shows run their course until they have actual replacements? Does it cost too much compared to running reruns?


They're not repeats


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cherry ghost said:


> They're not repeats


Maybe not Dateline (which I get), but aren't the SNL's just clip shows?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> So NBC cancels Ironside and Welcome to the Family, but really has nothing to replace it with. Repeats of SNL and Dateline? If that's the case, why not just let the shows run their course until they have actual replacements? Does it cost too much compared to running reruns?


The last episode of Ironside had a 1.0 rating, last Friday's Dateline had a 1.3. You do the math.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe not Dateline (which I get), but aren't the SNL's just clip shows?


There are only 2 SNL episodes, a Halloween special and Christmas special.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Maybe not Dateline (which I get), but aren't the SNL's just clip shows?


Could be, but in the Ironside slot there are only two SNLs. The others are three Datelines, a Kelly Clarkson Christmas Special, and a Michael Buble Christmas Special.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

ncbill said:


> Apparently there was a "CSI"-style pilot with Marg Helgenburger & William Petersen made about a decade before CSI aired.


Anyone with more details on this?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

cherry ghost said:


> Could be, but in the Ironside slot there are only two SNLs. The others are three Datelines, a Kelly Clarkson Christmas Special, and a Michael Buble Christmas Special.


Wouldn't the Christmas specials have aired anyway??


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> Wouldn't the Christmas specials have aired anyway??


Yes, but not necessarily in the Ironside time slot.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

cherry ghost said:


> Yes, but not necessarily in the Ironside time slot.


Which still leaves a net result of more time slots than new programs.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

scandia101 said:


> Which still leaves a net result of more time slots than new programs.


The Kelly Clarkson Special was originally scheduled for Tuesday the 10th in the Chicago Fire slot. They'll probably show a Chicago Fire repeat now instead.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

...and I guess Ironside is still new tonight, since it was still in the Tivo listings this morning, and I see nbc.com still shows it as airing tonight too.. oh, epguides.com shows a 5th episode as 'unaired'.

(I haven't even watched the pilot yet.. but still will, even though probably not RIGHT away... I've been quicker to delete SPs for not-great sitcoms this year..)


----------

