Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Azlen, Feb 25, 2013.
They might be better off running a bunch of infomercials.
So you say you want a Revolution...
I still think of NBC as being the #1 network, with ABC #2, and CBS #3 and PBS #4, with no other real choices. Times certainly have changed.
Nice to know Comcast has made such a wise decision in their purchase of a broadcasting company, couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of weasels errrr business partners.
yeah, I have no idea if it even matters, but it felt so good typing that out.
when you get beat by PBS, you know you got your ass kicked.
Ah well, at least they still have the best logo.
Does NBC have any power over the other networks of NBC Universal where they could harvest shows like Burn Notice, Mad Men, etc to play on NBC? I guess there is some business/financial reason why they don't do this, otherwise they would have done it already.
AMC is not part of the Universal behemoth.
I don't know if they could but it really wouldn't make sense to do so. Ratings for shows like Burn Notice are even lower than what NBC has right now. If a show did move from cable to network tv the costs associated with it would go up significantly (network work commands a higher rate of pay for all involved).
I dunno.. never really impressed me...
I thought I was the only person in the entire world who watched Journeyman. Can't wait for Gray's Anatomy to end so Kevin McKidd can find a decent part.
They've cancelled so many shows, that they seem like they won't have anything else to air!
Nah. They will just become a T-shirt company.
Which podcast? I'm looking for a new one.
Hoffer may be referring to Firewall & Iceberg (iTunes link), by Dan Fienberg and Alan Sepinwall of Hitfix.com. Thought I would mention it even if that's not the one Hoffer means, because I'd recommend it to anyone who likes insightful TV criticism and talk. You do need to have a high tolerance for lame patter and poor sound quality, but the core of the podcast is really good.
When I see that, it always reminds of the SNL Weekend Update bit where Chevy Chase makes fun of that logo when it was brand new. I'm sure that clip exists somewhere on the web.
I'm probably totally wrong, but I'll throw this out there. I know everyone is saying shows like Parenthood or Go On will likely be back even though the rating suck, just because they need SOMETHING to show. But why? If I'm NBC, I'm sacking ALL of them. If I had to I'd start with The Voice, maybe Revolution if the ratings hold up after the hiatus and everything else new. Why keep retreading the same old shows that haven't worked ratings wise? To me, it really epitomizes what losers they are. You're showing the audience that you have no clue, and you continue to have no clue. At least if you put a bunch of new stuff out there, MAYBE something will work out. Right now, what you have isn't.
Because you run promos for new shows during the returning shows. It's hard enough to draw viewers to new shows when you have a solid base of viewers watching your existing shows. But if you don't have any built-in viewers because you're not bringing back any shows, you are basically guaranteeing that nobody will watch your new shows because they won't know about them.
I think the idea is that this is what a network that was having more success would do. NBC has so much trouble all over its lineup that they'd have no programming if they sacked everything that didn't work all at once. It would be way too expensive to re-launch every single evening they program. And really, not every show needs to be a hit. Just one solid performer every evening (Revolution was in that category last fall), and a hit here or there (The Voice is one, as long as NBC doesn't wear it out) can buoy the whole lineup. Go On drew decent ratings behind The Voice, for example.