|
|
Post by tatfan on Apr 6, 2006 19:53:32 GMT -5
i know what you mean! there are many shows that i feel they kept on the air just cuz they wanted to give them a chance, not sure exactly why but they gave them like 10 chances. and other shows they take off the air really quickly, amost like they didnt care about it to begin with so now we have an excuse to get rid of it. this is just what ive noticed too.
|
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 6, 2006 20:34:02 GMT -5
I hear ya Tatfan. Some shows get canned after 3 or 4 episodes, but the entertainment shows reprted that "Joey" pretty much struggled the entire time it was on. It wasn't till recently they changed it's time slot then announced that it was done.
Why would a network give a struggling show 2 SEASONS?
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Apr 6, 2006 20:46:17 GMT -5
I hear ya Tatfan. Some shows get canned after 3 or 4 episodes, but the entertainment shows reprted that "Joey" pretty much struggled the entire time it was on. It wasn't till recently they changed it's time slot then announced that it was done. Why would a network give a struggling show 2 SEASONS? I personally think it's because of the success of Friends. I mean, it was a HUGE phenomenon! And because of that history, the execs probably did not give up on it. I can't think of any now, but there have been shows where they've been bombs during the first season and then they automatically pick up and become huge hits. I know I am not crazy about this. I've seen many television specials discussing different shows and their successes. I believe 'The Brady Bunch' was one of them. And look at what a success the show continues to be with new generations. |
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Apr 6, 2006 20:50:42 GMT -5
Or!
Maybe it was part of the the contract! Who knows! Can't the contract state conditions towards a show's cancellation? etc. I don't doubt that. It could be a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Animal on Apr 6, 2006 21:05:14 GMT -5
Erika is absolutely right. It's quite possible that NBC tried to have "Joey" carry on the momentum that "Friends" left behind. There have been many shows that have struggled its first season and have gone on to become major hits. Anyone remember "Seinfeld"  ? "Seinfeld" was never in the top 30 in its first THREE seasons and was only ranked #25 by Season 4. By the end of their 9th season, it was retired as the #1 show. What would have happened if "Seinfeld" was canceled early? Who knows? Maybe it had something to do with sponsors putting out big money because they thought "Joey" was going to be a hit, spinning off such a popular show. Keep in mind that, even though a show may not generate enough ratings, sponsors may still choose to advertise in hopes of a sleeper. Remember that just because a show is struggling in the ratings, it does not mean the show is somehow still generating income. Contracts to the actors should have nothing to do with the airing of the show. The episodes still get filmed, but it is usually up to the network's discretion to air them or not. There are times that some episodes that were filmed are never aired due to early cancellation. The actors get paid regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by The Animal on Apr 7, 2006 16:40:38 GMT -5
I'd also like to point out that "Gilligan's Island" was doing great in the ratings but was cancelled after its third season because -- get this -- the CBS president's wife's favorite show was "Gunsmoke". "Gunsmoke" didn't make the new fall line-up in the late 60's, and the wife demanded it should be on. That year, a new show was axed having never been aired and gone too was "Gilligan". Today, 40 years later, look at the following "Gilligan" has. Sometimes, networks really don't make smart decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 13, 2006 11:35:06 GMT -5
I have to say Animal that I disagree with you when it comes to CIC. When you post "sabotage" the way you do, I feel like I'm being mocked.
I do know alot about how the entertainment industry works and as I said in a previous post, yes, a network will move a show around enough and so much that loyal viewers won't be able to find it. Despite all the technology their is, a network can change their programming at the last minute. Not everybody in the world has all the technology that you mentioned to find there shows that have been moved.
Tonight, CIC is going up against ER and Without A Trace.
I see that more people voted that the network is not trying to jeapordize the show. That's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but Animal I truly feel that you are mocking me and I don't appreciate that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Apr 13, 2006 16:48:06 GMT -5
I don't feel he's mocking you. He's making interesting points. No one is truly positive on what their saying and can guarantee that they are right or wrong. You both make excellent points.
I am going to watch CIC tonight. It's really up to us. I honestly feel because of American Idol on Tuesday nights, CIC would have struggled. Any show at that time around that time slot would have. I am glad it will be on Thursday nights. Maybe the ratings will be better.
|
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 14, 2006 10:26:23 GMT -5
How would it be explained that ABC put a premiered a show on a night in which it was well known that trouble would arise when "American Idol" returned?
A ground breaking drama put in a time slot against an EXTREMELY well established reality show.
|
|
|
|
Post by unwritten on Apr 22, 2006 6:38:51 GMT -5
I've actually never watched this show, so I don't really know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 22, 2006 15:59:49 GMT -5
Hey Unwritten! I haven't been posting here because I'm basically over this now. I just personally feel that Commander In Chief has been sabotaged by ABC since they premiered it in a timeslot where I'm sure they knew it would be knocked righ down. It is now on Thursday nights at 10:00 and I don't know why they did start it off there or another timeslot that didn't have an established TV show in the first place. I started this poll to see if other people agreed with me, but I seem to be the only one that thinks this way. That's no big deal. I don't expect anybody to agree with me. I also don't think I'm right and the other members voted NO are wrong. I started this and voted yes because this is my opinion and the members that voted NO, that's their opinion. There's no right or wrong here. But I am over it and do hope that the show stays on the air.  |
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 23, 2006 9:18:27 GMT -5
Unwritten, as far as The Animal goes, he really is a great guy to post with. You can have great conversations and debates with him. |
|
|
|
Post by The Animal on Apr 23, 2006 21:20:03 GMT -5
Unwritten, as far as The Animal goes, he really is a great guy to post with. You can have great conversations and debates with him. Wow! Thanks, Queen Kelly!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by QueenKelly on Apr 24, 2006 11:52:34 GMT -5
Animal, I'm just speaking the truth. You're great to post with! You strike me as a very intelegent person without coming off as being superior to anyone. Mind you, on this thread I have wanted to smack ya upset the head a couple of times, but hey, what are friends for! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Horselover on Apr 24, 2006 12:26:05 GMT -5
|
|
Visit our blog today! 
? "Seinfeld" was never in the top 30 in its first THREE seasons and was only ranked #25 by Season 4. By the end of their 9th season, it was retired as the #1 show. What would have happened if "Seinfeld" was canceled early? Who knows? Maybe it had something to do with sponsors putting out big money because they thought "Joey" was going to be a hit, spinning off such a popular show. Keep in mind that, even though a show may not generate enough ratings, sponsors may still choose to advertise in hopes of a sleeper. Remember that just because a show is struggling in the ratings, it does not mean the show is somehow still generating income.
