TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2012, 01:35 PM   #31
busyba
The Funcooker
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaunnick View Post
Perhaps this is how there agents set them up, so to leave open the window for the suing.
Then the studio has a pretty good malpractice claim against their own lawyers.
__________________
"Wow... I so love you" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"of course, you are 100% correct" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

busyba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 01:50 PM   #32
Doggie Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaunnick View Post
I would not put them in the same category as Ed O'Neil, who is much more known to TV audiences as Ed Bundy.
*Al* Bundy!! (who once scored four touchdowns in a high school football game)
Doggie Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:37 PM   #33
Shaunnick
Registered User
 
Shaunnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggie Bear View Post
*Al* Bundy!! (who once scored four touchdowns in a high school football game)
/smacks head

Of course, who could forget, "Alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!"
Shaunnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 02:40 PM   #34
fmowry
Registered User
 
fmowry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 10,258
Can't they just kill off the little Asian kid and split her salary?

I wonder when the kids will hold out? After the adults get paid?
fmowry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 03:00 PM   #35
eddyj
Registered User
 
eddyj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 47,451
If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
eddyj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 03:18 PM   #36
busyba
The Funcooker
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyj View Post
If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?
Potential dud-ness is why the standard contracted salaries are so low-end in the first place. Renegotiating the contracts after a show becomes an established hit is standard practice in the industry.

The only reason it's a lawsuit now is because A) negotiations broke down, and 2) the producers apparently screwed up and provided a legal out by making the contract terms over 7 years, which is illegal for such contracts in CA.
__________________
"Wow... I so love you" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"of course, you are 100% correct" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

busyba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 03:51 PM   #37
astrohip
Stuart F
 
astrohip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba View Post
And that's the reason why the initial contracts are for the industry minimum, and then renegotiated if the show becomes a hit.
This is how Hollywood TV works. And when it is a hit, it often becomes nasty. Remember BBT a few years back, when they threatened to walk away? And I even vaguely recall LOST going thru something similar.

The only reason this wasn't a slam-dunk renegotiation is the size of the cast. One or two stars, they'd throw a few hundred K at them and be done with it. Here they have six adults, so the studio is putting a little more effort into it.

They will make a deal; both sides need each other. A little posturing, a few statements that will be regretted later on, and we'll be back in business. Actors making money, studios making money, audience laughing and advertisers wondering if their money really buys anything--it's what makes Hollywood great!
astrohip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 04:01 PM   #38
DreadPirateRob
Seriously?
 
DreadPirateRob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyj View Post
If the show had been a dud, would they have returned the money that they were paid for those episodes to the people who put up the investment money and lost it on a dud?
The "people who put up the money" was a production studio, who wastes countless dollars each year during pilot season on many shows that never even make it to air much less ones that do air but don't draw ratings. So essentially, the studio takes into consideration that most shows never make it to air when signing the actors to these initial contacts, which is why the initial contracts are so low. This show had made money hand over first for ABC since it aired. It's the highest-rated scripted show that ABC has, and it's the highest rated show ABC has in the coveted 18-49 demo (4th overall amongst all shows), which means that ABC can charge really high ad rates for it.

As astrohip said, this is pretty much par for the course and is going to be over very soon.
__________________
“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”
DreadPirateRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 04:39 PM   #39
eddyj
Registered User
 
eddyj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 47,451
But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
eddyj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 04:51 PM   #40
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 27,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba View Post
That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.

7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.
It didn't. It premiered in September of 2009.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:06 PM   #41
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 27,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadPirateRob View Post
The "people who put up the money" was a production studio, who wastes countless dollars each year during pilot season on many shows that never even make it to air much less ones that do air but don't draw ratings. So essentially, the studio takes into consideration that most shows never make it to air when signing the actors to these initial contacts, which is why the initial contracts are so low. This show had made money hand over first for ABC since it aired. It's the highest-rated scripted show that ABC has, and it's the highest rated show ABC has in the coveted 18-49 demo (4th overall amongst all shows), which means that ABC can charge really high ad rates for it.

As astrohip said, this is pretty much par for the course and is going to be over very soon.
It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).

The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:45 PM   #42
DreadPirateRob
Seriously?
 
DreadPirateRob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik View Post
It's not so much about whether it's the number 1, 2, 3 or whatever show 18-49. It's about what the actual ratings are. The ratings for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 2012 aren't nearly as high as they were for the number 1 show in 18-49 in 1998 when Friends was on the air. Viewership industry-wide is lower, because there are more alternatives now, and people watch the show in ways that don't count toward the ratings (like, on DVRs).

The network makes money based on how many people are watching. You count eyeballs. The comparisons to everything else on the air are secondary. Number 1 ain't what it used to be.
Certainly. And I doubt that the cast is looking for Friends-type money, because that's no longer available.

But, they do have leverage with the studio/network because it's by far the biggest scripted show on ABC and gets all sorts of awards and nominations that gives the network buzz, and aside from Lily, none of the cast is easily replaceable especially when they are negotiating together.
__________________
“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”
DreadPirateRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:47 PM   #43
DreadPirateRob
Seriously?
 
DreadPirateRob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyj View Post
But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.
You want fairness in a contract when one side has all the negotiating power and can just replace the other without batting an eye? Pollyanna.
__________________
“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”
DreadPirateRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 05:57 PM   #44
busyba
The Funcooker
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik View Post
It didn't. It premiered in September of 2009.
Ok. Then I'm baffled.
__________________
"Wow... I so love you" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"of course, you are 100% correct" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

busyba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 06:08 PM   #45
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 27,511
I wonder if the court will void a 7.5 year contract, or will simply "blue pencil" it to make it like it said 7 years.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 09:30 PM   #46
mattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: sunnyvale
Posts: 16,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by plateau10 View Post
And this is why networks love reality TV. Put a dozen or so people on and let them fight each other for half of what these actors make per episode.
Yeah, while some shows give out $100K or more, "Love in the Wild"'s prize is a "trip around the world". Sure, it looked like it was multi thousands of dollars (stops in like 6 cities all around the world), still very very cheap, and resulted in IIRC 8 hours of TV.
mattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 09:32 PM   #47
mattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: sunnyvale
Posts: 16,783
How long has 7 years been the standard? I sure thought it was 3-5, but this is just based on stuff I read long ago (i.e. probably wrong). I hope I'm not conflating it with the "standard" 3 picture deal for movies.
mattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2012, 09:43 PM   #48
aaronwt
HD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 13,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by plateau10 View Post
She is, but she does a lot of other stuff.

The article I read said this:
$200K an episode?
Those are some very good salaries for an ensemble TV show especially in this day and age. And remember it's only a half hour show. Either way they signed the long term contract. Unless someone held a gun their head they have no one to blame but themselves.
__________________
Roamio Pro
TiVo Mini x3
Roamio Basic OTA
39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 06:32 AM   #49
fmowry
Registered User
 
fmowry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 10,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyj View Post
But why couldn't you have low salaries to start, but have higher ones later (if you get to later, it is because the show is doing well). Or have a clause that if the show does well, there are automatic salary bumps or something? Seems like if you sign for 7 years, you should stand by that. Otherwise why bother with having 7 year contracts in the first place, if you are just going to ignore them? I don't get Hollywood.
They had a 4% salary bump per year in the contract (Vergara had %5 I think).

Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings. Fortunately for the other 5, Vergara and O'Neill are showing solidarity and negotiating with them. They'd probably get more if they went in solo.
fmowry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 09:19 AM   #50
DeDondeEs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 14,639
This show has peaked for me. It used to be I would watch the show right after it was done recording. With this last season, I think a couple got recorded over bc I just never got around to watching it.
DeDondeEs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 09:32 AM   #51
astrohip
Stuart F
 
astrohip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Either way they signed the long term contract. Unless someone held a gun their head they have no one to blame but themselves.
I'm not sure if you read many of the above posts. Signing a long term contract at a relatively modest salary is SOP for non-stars on a new sitcom. If the show becomes a hit, it is also SOP that your contract will be renegotiated. SOP. It always happens. And neither side thinks twice. Nobody pulls out the "you signed a contract" whine; that's not how Hollywood-TV works.

The only reason this didn't get resolved behind the scenes, and fairly quickly, is it's an ensemble show. With six actors to pay-bump, and not the usual 1 or 2 or even 3, the studios will take a slightly firmer stance in the early stages, trying to squeeze a few bucks out. But it won't matter--the actors WILL get their money, maybe not the exact amount they want, but they will get a substantial raise. And no one will remember this in three months.

I'm not saying this "contract don't mean shyte" policy is good or bad. I'm just saying this is SOP for this industry. Trying to understand it using real world norms just makes your head hurt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmowry View Post
Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings. Fortunately for the other 5, Vergara and O'Neill are showing solidarity and negotiating with them. They'd probably get more if they went in solo.
Disagree. This is an incredibly popular ensemble show. Changing any of them would be disruptive. Changing several of them would kill the show. Dead. Dead. Dead.

And going solo removes the threat of a mass defection.That's the fear that will make the studio pony up.
astrohip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 10:05 AM   #52
whitson77
Director Level
 
whitson77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 19,183
If I signed a contract I would honor it. Of course if I became huge, we would ask the studio to give me a bump. It sounds like the studio offered them more than was in their contract and that was still not enough for them.

Hard not to side with the studio in this case IMO.
whitson77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 10:16 AM   #53
fmowry
Registered User
 
fmowry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 10,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohip View Post


Disagree. This is an incredibly popular ensemble show. Changing any of them would be disruptive. Changing several of them would kill the show. Dead. Dead. Dead.

And going solo removes the threat of a mass defection.That's the fear that will make the studio pony up.
I don't think they need the gay guys at all. Way over the top at this point. And I love Phil, but his wife? Could be played by anyone. The show wasn't nearly as funny this past year.

I guess it's the reason the writers aren't asking for more money. They didn't do their jobs last year.

If anything, the kids (aside from Lily) stole the show.
fmowry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 10:51 AM   #54
billypritchard
Embiggener
 
billypritchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,258
This is standard practice in the tv world. The studio signed a syndication deal. In order to reach the proper number of episodes, they need to make probably two more seasons. That means the Studio needs the actors. The actors now have leverage to ask for more money. When a show first starts, the actors are hired for less money. Everyone is taking a chance, hoping the show hits. When a show hits, the studio makes a huge profit. They should be compensating the actors who helped make it a hit, and who have been paid less up to this point.
__________________
Do Me! Do Me! - MNoelH
I agree with BP - Finnstang
billypritchard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 11:17 AM   #55
DreadPirateRob
Seriously?
 
DreadPirateRob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmowry View Post
Aside from Vergara, I think any of them could be easily replaced without affecting ratings.
I disagree completely. The show isn't nearly as good as it was its first season, but it's still a ratings hit by today's standards and by now the characters are well established. You couldn't just swap out Ty Burrell for anyone else, either as a new "Phil" or as a new character, and expect people not to notice. This isn't the 1960s and this isn't I Dream of Jeannie.
__________________
“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”
DreadPirateRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 12:11 PM   #56
Mikeyis4dcats
Registered User
 
Mikeyis4dcats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreadPirateRob View Post
I disagree completely. The show isn't nearly as good as it was its first season, but it's still a ratings hit by today's standards and by now the characters are well established. You couldn't just swap out Ty Burrell for anyone else, either as a new "Phil" or as a new character, and expect people not to notice. This isn't the 1960s and this isn't I Dream of Jeannie.
Agreed. While it hit a sophomore slump, it still garnered 14 (14!) Emmy nominations.
Mikeyis4dcats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 12:19 PM   #57
TheMerk
Always Bid First
 
TheMerk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba View Post
That's interesting. I guess they have a case then.

7 years 4 months is a really odd term for a contract. I wonder if that was because the show premiered as a mid-season replacement.
7 * 12 = 84

84 + 4 = 88

I guess I can see someone thinking 88 months was a nice round number and making a contract around that.
__________________
Adam

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
/
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



TheMerk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 12:59 PM   #58
busyba
The Funcooker
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMerk View Post
7 * 12 = 84

84 + 4 = 88

I guess I can see someone thinking 88 months was a nice round number and making a contract around that.
I thought the studio heads and agents and lawyers were all jews. No way they pick that number.



(look it up )
__________________
"Wow... I so love you" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"of course, you are 100% correct" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

busyba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 02:24 PM   #59
DreadPirateRob
Seriously?
 
DreadPirateRob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by billypritchard View Post
This is standard practice in the tv world. The studio signed a syndication deal. In order to reach the proper number of episodes, they need to make probably two more seasons. That means the Studio needs the actors. The actors now have leverage to ask for more money. When a show first starts, the actors are hired for less money. Everyone is taking a chance, hoping the show hits. When a show hits, the studio makes a huge profit. They should be compensating the actors who helped make it a hit, and who have been paid less up to this point.
This, exactly.

Maybe people don't know this, but TV show contracts are entered into before even the pilot is fully cast. Basically, when the producers have narrowed down to a few final actors for a role, *each* of those actors is signed to a contract, and then the studio has final approval on who is going to be cast in the role. That contract - which again, is entered into before even the pilot is even filmed, much less before it is picked up for series and then becomes a hit - determines what the actor will be paid for the pilot, and if it makes it to series, what the actor will be paid for the next 5-7 years. If the actor balks at the contract he/she is presented with, the studio will in all likelihood just move on to the next candidate (unless they are a big name). Obviously, if an actor is not approved by the studio, their contract is torn up and they aren't paid anything.

Actors are only paid for the number of episodes that are produced, so if the show doesn't make it to series or if the show gets cancelled early on, it's not like the studio is going to keep paying them. And while the studio *may* come back and offer them more money once the show is a hit, they may also try and get away with not doing so. That is why these renegotiations are entirely commonplace and standard operating procedure.
__________________
“You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage. Just, literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery. And I promise you, something great will come of it.”
DreadPirateRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 08:18 PM   #60
aaronwt
HD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 13,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohip View Post
I'm not sure if you read many of the above posts. Signing a long term contract at a relatively modest salary is SOP for non-stars on a new sitcom. If the show becomes a hit, it is also SOP that your contract will be renegotiated. SOP. It always happens. And neither side thinks twice. Nobody pulls out the "you signed a contract" whine; that's not how Hollywood-TV works.

The only reason this didn't get resolved behind the scenes, and fairly quickly, is it's an ensemble show. With six actors to pay-bump, and not the usual 1 or 2 or even 3, the studios will take a slightly firmer stance in the early stages, trying to squeeze a few bucks out. But it won't matter--the actors WILL get their money, maybe not the exact amount they want, but they will get a substantial raise. And no one will remember this in three months.

I'm not saying this "contract don't mean shyte" policy is good or bad. I'm just saying this is SOP for this industry. Trying to understand it using real world norms just makes your head hurt.


Disagree. This is an incredibly popular ensemble show. Changing any of them would be disruptive. Changing several of them would kill the show. Dead. Dead. Dead.

And going solo removes the threat of a mass defection.That's the fear that will make the studio pony up.

Isn't a 5 year contract the norm for those situation?. Not 7 years.
__________________
Roamio Pro
TiVo Mini x3
Roamio Basic OTA
39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |