FLM films - My Webpage

2003-11-24 10:24:07-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series? --There are only 22 episodes per year. In order to make them stretch from October till May, there have to be weeks without a new episode. Did you really expect the WB to run a new episode the night before Thanksgiving? Will you expect a new episode on Christmas Eve too? Last year, the WB only went up through episode 4.7 and then there were no new episodes till January. This year we at least got through episode 5.8 before the break. I just heard that there won't be any new episodes in December. I wish that were wrong, but it's probably right. Clairel

2003-11-24 10:48:22-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (kenm47@ix.netcom.com)


"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series? There's just so far you can stretch 22 episodes a season. Bound to have some repeat hells along the way, or substitutions. Ken

2003-11-24 11:01:03-05:00 - No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Hostile 17 <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com>)


This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. Are they pre-empting the series?

2003-11-24 11:37:01-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (ttyan2000@yahoo.com)


"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series? No new Angel until January, actually, according to Matt Roush. Not pre-empting, putting it on long hiatus. I believe they did this last season as well. There are only 22 episodes and I think they like to load up episodes around sweeps. We just got 8 episodes in a row, so we were due for a hiatus. Someone on morethanspike says that episodes 10, 11, & 12 are intended to air during February sweeps, which means we get one new episode in January, I think. The two month break kind of sucks. On the plus side, at least the WB appears to be airing some reruns, which IIRC they didn't do much last year. At least, the WB site is showing "Conviction" as the next episode to be aired. I'm not sure why the WB tends to put huge hiatuses in and then air a long string of episodes in a row for Angel. Does anyone know if they do this for their other shows as well? Teenes

2003-11-24 12:47:56-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (igs622001@yahoo.com)


"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series?

2003-11-24 13:56:14-05:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 24 Nov 2003 10:48:22 -0800, kenm47@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote: >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... >> This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the >> coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. >> Are they pre-empting the series? > >There's just so far you can stretch 22 episodes a season. Bound to >have some repeat hells along the way, or substitutions. I've said this many times but the 22 episodes a season thing is one of the biggest reasons the arcs often seem so clunky. Even the seasons I don't particularly care for play much better in syndication now that you can watch them with only a day between episodes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-24 16:19:56-07:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On 24 Nov 2003 11:37:01 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... >> This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the >> coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. >> Are they pre-empting the series? > >No new Angel until January, actually, according to Matt Roush. > >Not pre-empting, putting it on long hiatus. I believe they did this >last season as well. There are only 22 episodes and I think they like >to load up episodes around sweeps. We just got 8 episodes in a row, >so we were due for a hiatus. Someone on morethanspike says that >episodes 10, 11, & 12 are intended to air during February sweeps, >which means we get one new episode in January, I think. >The two month break kind of sucks. On the plus side, at least the WB >appears to be airing some reruns, which IIRC they didn't do much last >year. At least, the WB site is showing "Conviction" as the next >episode to be aired. > >I'm not sure why the WB tends to put huge hiatuses in and then air a >long string of episodes in a row for Angel. Does anyone know if they >do this for their other shows as well? Every US network does it for all of their regular scripted programs. (and hiatus isn't really the word you want, that generally indicates the show not being on at all, rather than in reruns) The networks are faced with stretching their new episodes (which for scripted dramas are usually 22 to 24 episodes) over the entire season, 35 weeks. They want to start the season with a string of new episodes, and they want to have new episodes during the November, February, and May Sweeps periods. This year, Angel's new season started on October 1st. They showed 5 new episodes leading up to November Sweeps, and 3 in November Sweeps. The 4th week of November Sweeps almost always catches Thanksgiving, and gets a lot of pre-emptions (again, on all networks). They will also want 4 new episodes for February Sweeps, and 4 new episodes for May Sweeps. That accounts for 17 of the 22 episodes this year, leaving 5 new episodes for December, January, March, and April. The choice becomes whether to have the long stretch of 'no new episodes' in December-January or in March-April. Again, you'll see a very similar pattern with Smallville, Enterprise, ER, Alias, you name it. The math's the same for all of them. -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2003-11-24 18:10:19+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - ("Scifispace.com" <info@scifispace.com.nospam>)


"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series? Most shows go into repeats during the Thanksgiving holidays - I guess they figure people are off being with family instead of watching TV. Lori -- ============================= Visit our Scifi Sites for fans by fans... www.Scifispace.com - www.Scifisource.com, www.Scificonventions.com And my stores: www.SensualElegance.com & www.MysticConvergence.com

2003-11-24 18:17:41+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - ("Brian (aka Zod)" <zod666@NOSPAMtelus.net>)


most people repeat for the US thanksgiving.. then sometimes they don't even run new eps until january... theres usually a lull after feb sweeps too - Brian "Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the WB. > Are they pre-empting the series? > >

2003-11-24 19:12:20-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (lorincantrell@yahoo.com)


William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > On 24 Nov 2003 11:37:01 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: > > >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > They will also want 4 new episodes for February Sweeps, and 4 new > episodes for May Sweeps. That accounts for 17 of the 22 episodes this > year, leaving 5 new episodes for December, January, March, and April. > The choice becomes whether to have the long stretch of 'no new episodes' > in December-January or in March-April. > > Again, you'll see a very similar pattern with Smallville, Enterprise, ER, > Alias, you name it. The math's the same for all of them. I actually like the way they did it with Angel last year, because it made for an almost uninterrupted string of episodes (15 of them) from mid-January to May sweeps. I'm too busy from Thanksgiving to New Years to care about TV. Contrast this with Buffy, which tended to run an ep in December, then pepper the non-sweeps months in the spring. Harder to keep up with. Of the shows you named above, I'd like to point out that Enterprise did 26 hours last year, and appear on track to do 26 this year. 4 extra episodes seems to make a big difference. They've got a new episode this week (on the night before Thanksgiving), and if the worker bees over at epguides.com have it right, 3 new episodes already scheduled in January. It may just be psycological, but I feel like the season runs much more smoothly for them. -beaumon (who thinks tv shows on DVD is the best thing since Jesus)

2003-11-24 22:28:50+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <40l4svorhmuvspu9k7o12imbkq9ggp46nm@4ax.com>, EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote: > On 24 Nov 2003 10:48:22 -0800, kenm47@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote: > > >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message > >news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > >> This is weird, but I just checked my TiVo schedule for Angel over the > >> coming weeks and it says no new episodes are being displayed for the > >> WB. > >> Are they pre-empting the series? > > > >There's just so far you can stretch 22 episodes a season. Bound to > >have some repeat hells along the way, or substitutions. > > I've said this many times but the 22 episodes a season thing is one of > the biggest reasons the arcs often seem so clunky. Even the seasons I don't > particularly care for play much better in syndication now that you can > watch them with only a day between episodes. Absolutely. And it's not like this 22 episode a season thing is set in stone. Back when I was kid, TV shows used to have new episodes all season long except for holiday weeks like Christmas and Thanksgiving. There sure wasn't 2 months of re-runs in the middle of the season. And even more recent shows have more than 22 episodes. The one that springs most readily to mind is "24" which necessarily has to have 24 episodes. And the X-Files hit 25 and 26 episodes in a couple of its seasons.

2003-11-25 05:37:28+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Fenster <r84gt27q8@hotmail.com>)


On 24 Nov 2003, EGK <me@privacy.net> went to the cliffs of hope and faith and kicked the toll booth off: > I've said this many times but the 22 episodes a season thing is > one of the biggest reasons the arcs often seem so clunky. Even > the seasons I don't particularly care for play much better in > syndication now that you can watch them with only a day between > episodes. I like how FX went from The Shield to Lucky to Nip/Tuck on Tuesdays at 10pm with no weeks off (or very few). Granted, the regular networks wouldn't sink that much into one timeslot considering they have full schedules, but it's nice to see someone buck the trend (and with 3 great shows to boot). I understand the holiday rerun/hiatus approach, but it does make it hard to stay interested. DVD is the ultimate way to immerse oneself in a season!

2003-11-25 08:44:11-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On 24 Nov 2003, Beaumon wrote: > William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > > On 24 Nov 2003 11:37:01 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: > > > > >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > They will also want 4 new episodes for February Sweeps, and 4 new > > episodes for May Sweeps. That accounts for 17 of the 22 episodes this > > year, leaving 5 new episodes for December, January, March, and April. > > The choice becomes whether to have the long stretch of 'no new episodes' > > in December-January or in March-April. > > > > Again, you'll see a very similar pattern with Smallville, Enterprise, ER, > > Alias, you name it. The math's the same for all of them. Personally, I prefer it this way. I need a break from teevee. Well, from the commercials anyway I need respite. And the reruns give me a chance to retape things that I had problems with the original transmission on. Hank -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-25 09:39:09-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (reldevik@usa.net)


lorincantrell@yahoo.com (Beaumon) wrote in message news:<588bc11e.0311241912.798a278a@posting.google.com>... > William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > > On 24 Nov 2003 11:37:01 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: > > > > >"Hostile 17" <hostile17@rcn.bogus.com> wrote in message news:<bpt9ut$94n$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > They will also want 4 new episodes for February Sweeps, and 4 new > > episodes for May Sweeps. That accounts for 17 of the 22 episodes this > > year, leaving 5 new episodes for December, January, March, and April. > > The choice becomes whether to have the long stretch of 'no new episodes' > > in December-January or in March-April. > > > > Again, you'll see a very similar pattern with Smallville, Enterprise, ER, > > Alias, you name it. The math's the same for all of them. > > > I actually like the way they did it with Angel last year, because it > made for an almost uninterrupted string of episodes (15 of them) from > mid-January to May sweeps. I'm too busy from Thanksgiving to New > Years to care about TV. Contrast this with Buffy, which tended to run > an ep in December, then pepper the non-sweeps months in the spring. > Harder to keep up with. > > Of the shows you named above, I'd like to point out that Enterprise > did 26 hours last year, and appear on track to do 26 this year. 4 > extra episodes seems to make a big difference. They've got a new > episode this week (on the night before Thanksgiving), and if the > worker bees over at epguides.com have it right, 3 new episodes already > scheduled in January. It may just be psycological, but I feel like > the season runs much more smoothly for them. --My grievance is that Enterprise is so worthless and boring, yet it's the series that gets the 26 episodes. Why can't AtS be the show to have 26 episodes? Also, I remember when I was a kid in the sixties that 26 episodes per year was standard for all TV shows. Why isn't it still the norm? Clairel

2003-11-25 10:27:33-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (ttyan2000@yahoo.com)


William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > (and hiatus isn't really the word you want, that generally indicates the > show not being on at all, rather than in reruns) My bad. My impression was that hiatus meant a period of time with no new episodes. What would you refer to the Dec-Jan break with reruns but no first-runs, then? > The networks are faced with stretching their new episodes (which for > scripted dramas are usually 22 to 24 episodes) over the entire season, 35 > weeks. They want to start the season with a string of new episodes, and > they want to have new episodes during the November, February, and May > Sweeps periods. This year, Angel's new season started on October 1st. > They showed 5 new episodes leading up to November Sweeps, and 3 in > November Sweeps. The 4th week of November Sweeps almost always catches > Thanksgiving, and gets a lot of pre-emptions (again, on all networks). > > They will also want 4 new episodes for February Sweeps, and 4 new > episodes for May Sweeps. That accounts for 17 of the 22 episodes this > year, leaving 5 new episodes for December, January, March, and April. > The choice becomes whether to have the long stretch of 'no new episodes' > in December-January or in March-April. Yes, I realize this, but I don't recall other shows having quite as long breaks as Angel has been given in the last couple years. More like new episodes peppered in among the reruns, so that it's more like 2 or 3 weeks rather than 2 or 3 months between new episodes. Which, IMO, is a more guaranteed way of keeping viewers around watching, or at least paying attention, b/c they never know when a new episode will pop up among the reruns. Then again, I don't normally pay as much attention to other shows because I rarely care as much about what's going to happen next on those shows as I do with Buffy or Angel. I try not to miss new episodes but I don't necessarily notice how long the breaks are between new episodes. > Again, you'll see a very similar pattern with Smallville, Enterprise, ER, > Alias, you name it. The math's the same for all of them. That's good to know - essentially what I was asking =). Teenes

2003-11-25 13:45:32-06:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0311250939.487952e8@posting.google.com... > --My grievance is that Enterprise is so worthless and boring, yet it's > the series that gets the 26 episodes. Why can't AtS be the show to > have 26 episodes? ST:E gets lots of viewers in reruns. Also the way they shoot the episodes may allow more episodes to be filmed in a similar amount of time.. There are usually some charachter centered episodes that could be filmed while other episodes are made with the other charachters. Perhaps they can make 26 episodes in the same time period. There was the episode with only Travis (Helmsman) visiting his family on thier ship. There was the episode where The engineer and security guy were alone in a stranded shuttle. There was the episode with the engineer on the alien ship, and he comes back pregnant. There was the episode where the engineer was was kidnapped and escaped with a princess. Very Limited other charachter involvement. Several episodes that focus on just the Captain and the Vulcan with limited other charachters. An episode with hoshi (communications) on a planet with a mentalist Another episode where hoshi is incoporeal and is on camera 80% of the time with limited other charachters. Several episodes that centered on the Doctor and one crewman. > Also, I remember when I was a kid in the sixties that 26 episodes per > year was standard for all TV shows. Why isn't it still the norm? Higher standards of production? Could be that ST:E has 26 episodes because the other ST versions did as well.

2003-11-25 13:48:30-05:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On 25 Nov 2003 10:27:33 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: >William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > >> (and hiatus isn't really the word you want, that generally indicates the >> show not being on at all, rather than in reruns) > >My bad. My impression was that hiatus meant a period of time with no >new episodes. What would you refer to the Dec-Jan break with reruns >but no first-runs, then? Most people in here have just come to call those time periods "rerun hell". -:) With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, i've never been able to understand why they don't try something out of the ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season straight through with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running it again the same way. I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where people are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break between new episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of the dramatic like that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-27 08:37:58+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


Clairel wrote: > > --My grievance is that Enterprise is so worthless and boring, yet it's > the series that gets the 26 episodes. Why can't AtS be the show to > have 26 episodes? > > Also, I remember when I was a kid in the sixties that 26 episodes per > year was standard for all TV shows. Why isn't it still the norm? For the same reason that the season first shrank from 39 episodes down to 26: money. Studios are forced to produce the shows at a loss, since networks pay less for the initial licence fees than the shows cost to make. The more episodes, the bigger the hit the studio takes. If a show happens to last 65 episodes (not 100), it has a chance of going into syndication and making up those losses, but the majority of shows do not get to that. As for Enterprise, it is the weak linchpin of the struggling network which is owned by the studio that makes the show. Obviously, Paramount is willing to spend the extra dollars over what it doesn't recover from its UPN revenues to make a few extra episodes in the hopes of having a more attractive package when it releases Enterprise to syndication (although it seems that they are starting to pull back all their series from syndic and reserving them for TNN and other Viacom holdings). Angel, on the other hand, represents hard cash going out the door from WB to Fox, and WB would rather use reruns than pay more for more episodes of a series which is not exactly a blockbuster.

2003-11-27 08:37:59+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


EGK wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2003 10:27:33 -0800, ttyan2000@yahoo.com (Teenes) wrote: > > >William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:<qg35svch45130p317a02oro9m61fnr16ri@4ax.com>... > > > >> (and hiatus isn't really the word you want, that generally > >> indicates the show not being on at all, rather than in reruns) > > > >My bad. My impression was that hiatus meant a period of time with no > >new episodes. What would you refer to the Dec-Jan break with reruns > >but no first-runs, then? > > Most people in here have just come to call those time periods "rerun > hell". -:) A hiatus also usually identifies a production stoppage as well as not being on the air, with the return of either aspect being questionable. Filling time slots that would otherwise be used for reruns with other programming is not the same as putting a show on hiatus. > With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, i've > never been able to understand why they don't try something out of the > ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season straight through > with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running it again the same > way. > > I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where people > are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break between new > episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of the dramatic like > that. Mostly, it's not practical. Given the decision-making schedule and the production requirements, it is not possible to write, film and post 22 weekly episodes in time to run them all in a row within the current season parameters. The "rerun hell" periods, as well as the occasional stray rerun week (such as at the end of October for shows that began in September) are as much about letting the production catch up as about whether or not people are watching television on a given night.

2003-11-27 11:10:24-05:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com> wrote: >As for Enterprise, it is the weak linchpin of the struggling network >which is owned by the studio that makes the show. Obviously, Paramount >is willing to spend the extra dollars over what it doesn't recover from >its UPN revenues to make a few extra episodes in the hopes of having a >more attractive package when it releases Enterprise to syndication >(although it seems that they are starting to pull back all their series >from syndic and reserving them for TNN and other Viacom holdings). Enterprise may be relatively weak but it's UPN's highest rated regular program. Buffy couldn't beat it out for that honor when it was on UPN and both garnered a larger audience then Angel. I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does and the Star Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more attractive to advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up watching Star Trek make for a nice demographic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-27 11:59:36-07:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:51:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3FC59915.1C74@mindspring.com>, dsbarr@mindspring.com wrote: > >> EGK wrote: > >> > With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, i've >> > never been able to understand why they don't try something out of the >> > ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season straight through >> > with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running it again the same >> > way. >> > >> > I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where people >> > are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break between new >> > episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of the dramatic like >> > that. >> >> Mostly, it's not practical. Given the decision-making schedule and the >> production requirements, it is not possible to write, film and post 22 >> weekly episodes in time to run them all in a row within the current >> season parameters. > >So they just start shooting earlier. If they ran the season straight >through starting in September, they'd be done by February. They could >start shooting in April and have most of the season done by the next >September's premiere date. For practical (as well as inertia) reasons, they probably won't go there very soon, but there does seem to be a paradigm shift starting to occur in the way studios and networks do hour serial dramas. The lack or ratings for reruns of those types of programs has reached the point where even the Big Three And A Half aren't doing reruns of them anymore. That has led everyone more back in the direction of the 'Wheel' concept. Back, because it isn't new. ABC did it with westerns (Cheyenne, Sugarfoot, Bronco Lane) back in the very early 60s, and NBC did it with mystery shows in the 70s (McMillan & Wife, McCloud, and uhhh..., can't think of the third 'wheel'). The WB resurrected it for the last two seasons of Felicity, with mixed results. This season all the networks have talked about at least trying it. The other change is the virtual death of the syndication market for hour serial dramas (there's still a market for sitcoms, but that's also going down). Buffy and Angel may just form the bookmarks of the seachange, here. Buffy was just about the last of the old-style syndication package. Angel, by comparison was syndicated at about a tenth the rate that Buffy got (which Buffy got primarily by Fox, intelligently, doing the package at the height of Buffy's popularity, well before the syndication went into effect). The replacement for the syndication market seems, at this point to be the season DVD sets. Buffy's season one DVD set wasn't released in the US until the first 5 seasons had all shown in syndication and on FX (the old pattern). Angel's season one DVD set came out before its syndication and cable broadcasts had started. I'm thinking we're going to see that a lot more, because the studios are changing their thinking from DVDs being a 'scoop up whatever's left' at the end of the revenue cycle to DVDs being the number 2 downstream revenue producer (after foreign market sales). Well , that's all suitably sententious.

2003-11-27 12:33:48-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (John Lorentz <jlorentz@spiritone.com>)


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:28:50 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Absolutely. And it's not like this 22 episode a season thing is set in >stone. Back when I was kid, TV shows used to have new episodes all >season long except for holiday weeks like Christmas and Thanksgiving. >There sure wasn't 2 months of re-runs in the middle of the season. "All season long" has never been more than 39 television episodes a year. Watching Laugh-In on Trio these last few weeks has prompted me tp pull up episode guides for it. Assuming it was fair standard for network television in the late 60s, it had 26 episodes a year, took very few breaks from the start of the season in September until it ran through the end of the season...and the new season ended in March. Do we can complain about no new episodes in December, when a lot of people are involved with holiday activities...or we can complain about having nothing to watch in April and May. -- John

2003-11-27 13:26:23-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, EGK wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com> > wrote: > > I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does and the Star > Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more attractive to > advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up watching Star Trek make for a > nice demographic. Not really, they are too old. Heck, I'm too old to matter and I'm not even part of the Baby Boom (although my siblings are). Hank, born 1961 4 years after the end of the boom. -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-27 13:28:44-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, BTR1701 wrote: > So they just start shooting earlier. If they ran the season straight > through starting in September, they'd be done by February. They could > start shooting in April and have most of the season done by the next > September's premiere date. And if the net didn't pick up the back half of the season they'd be out a bundle. Hank -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-27 15:51:01+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3FC59915.1C74@mindspring.com>, dsbarr@mindspring.com wrote: > EGK wrote: > > With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, i've > > never been able to understand why they don't try something out of the > > ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season straight through > > with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running it again the same > > way. > > > > I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where people > > are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break between new > > episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of the dramatic like > > that. > > Mostly, it's not practical. Given the decision-making schedule and the > production requirements, it is not possible to write, film and post 22 > weekly episodes in time to run them all in a row within the current > season parameters. So they just start shooting earlier. If they ran the season straight through starting in September, they'd be done by February. They could start shooting in April and have most of the season done by the next September's premiere date.

2003-11-27 16:39:00-05:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (EGK <me@privacy.net>)


On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:26:23 -0800, Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, EGK wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com> >> wrote: >> >> I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does and the Star >> Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more attractive to >> advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up watching Star Trek make for a >> nice demographic. > >Not really, they are too old. Heck, I'm too old to matter and I'm not >even part of the Baby Boom (although my siblings are). > >Hank, born 1961 4 years after the end of the boom. I should have been more precise in what I meant. I took it as a given that everyone would think younger audiences are drawn in by science fiction type programs. What I meant about the baby boomers is that Star Trek has been around for so long now that it spans generations. Kids watching the newest incarnations are joined by parents and even grand parents who watched the originals. So a program like Enterprise may very well span all demographics. The Buffy universe which includes Angel is something that's likely to be a passing fancy as many such programs are. You can argue that BTVS was a better show if you like. I personally enjoyed it more then any Star Trek but I can't see it spawning new programming 30yrs later. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

2003-11-28 01:56:00+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@login2.fas.harvard.edu>)


In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0311271324570.712-100000@davidt>, Hank Tiffany wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, EGK wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com> >> wrote: >> >> I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does and the Star >> Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more attractive to >> advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up watching Star Trek make for a >> nice demographic. > > Not really, they are too old. Heck, I'm too old to matter and I'm not > even part of the Baby Boom (although my siblings are). > > Hank, born 1961 4 years after the end of the boom. > Actually, the Baby Boom generation is usually believed to have gone out of production ca. 1965, unless the generations are now defined by 12-year cycles rather than the traditional 20. Even the flower power druggies didn't generally start banging them out quite that young. But either way, you're right about being outside the trendy demographic. I think UPN has taken this into account by pitching Enterprise as more of a sequel to the NextGen Borg movie (and a bridge to the NextGen series) than as any kind of intelligible "prequel" to the original Trek. They would prefer to short-circuit the classic Trek and its aging fan base completely. I imagine they may complete this process formally at some point, with yet another cliched time-travel paradox episode that will somehow render the "23rd century" of the classic Trek impossible. --Kevin who, having been born in 1955 will now claim the Baby Boom generation really only lasted 7 years, until 1953...

2003-11-28 05:28:03+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (klyfix@aol.comedy)


In article <slrnbsdapg.vd.klcroxen@login2.fas.harvard.edu>, Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@login2.fas.harvard.edu> writes: > I imagine they may complete this process formally at some >point, with yet another cliched time-travel paradox episode that will >somehow render the "23rd century" of the classic Trek impossible. > That's kinda what I'm half expecting. V. S. Greene : klyfix@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham... Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html "Death and Poverty love me so much they brought friends!"-Vash in "Trigun"

2003-11-28 09:30:07-08:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Hank Tiffany <davidt@cet.com>)


On 28 Nov 2003, Kevin Croxen wrote: > In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0311271324570.712-100000@davidt>, Hank Tiffany wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, EGK wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does and the Star > >> Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more attractive to > >> advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up watching Star Trek make for a > >> nice demographic. > > > > Not really, they are too old. Heck, I'm too old to matter and I'm not > > even part of the Baby Boom (although my siblings are). > > > > Hank, born 1961 4 years after the end of the boom. > > > > Actually, the Baby Boom generation is usually believed to have gone out > of production ca. 1965, unless the generations are now defined by 12-year > cycles rather than the traditional 20. Even the flower power druggies > didn't generally start banging them out quite that young. The baby boom was a demographic phenom where the birth rate, suppressed during the depression shot past previous norms then returned to, and indeed declined past "normal". Started about 1942, ended around 1957. Teh baby boom generation is an invention of the 80's and is silly on the face of it. For starters, how can yuo be a real boomer if you weren't of draft age during the 'nam? My ex-wife is a 2nd generation boomer under that silliness (b 1964 to a mother b 1948). Not to mention that it overlaps the original definition of gen X (based on 20 year periods since the birth of the republic). So yuo can be a boomer and an Xer all at once. I repeat, I was not part of the Baby boom although my older sibs were. > But either way, you're right about being outside the trendy demographic. > I think UPN has taken this into account by pitching Enterprise as more of > a sequel to the NextGen Borg movie (and a bridge to the NextGen series) > than as any kind of intelligible "prequel" to the original Trek. They > would prefer to short-circuit the classic Trek and its aging fan base > completely. I imagine they may complete this process formally at some > point, with yet another cliched time-travel paradox episode that will > somehow render the "23rd century" of the classic Trek impossible. Oh, Voyager already did that. If NCC-1701 can cover 1000 light years in a few days (Obsession) and Voyager is gonna take 70+ years just to cover a measly 70,000 lt yrs, we must be in different universes. > --Kevin > > who, having been born in 1955 will now claim the Baby Boom > generation really only lasted 7 years, until 1953... Sorry, you're in the Boom. Hank -- Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all

2003-11-28 12:32:18+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com>)


EGK <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:878csv8p8ku921po9ecmqm6arr7809utb8@4ax.com: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:58 GMT, David Samuel Barr > <dsbarr@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >>As for Enterprise, it is the weak linchpin of the struggling >>network which is owned by the studio that makes the show. >>Obviously, Paramount is willing to spend the extra dollars over >>what it doesn't recover from its UPN revenues to make a few >>extra episodes in the hopes of having a more attractive package >>when it releases Enterprise to syndication (although it seems >>that they are starting to pull back all their series from syndic >>and reserving them for TNN and other Viacom holdings). > > Enterprise may be relatively weak but it's UPN's highest rated > regular program. Buffy couldn't beat it out for that honor when > it was on UPN and both garnered a larger audience then Angel. > I don't get UPN so don't watch Enterprise but my brother does > and the Star Trek Audience is a lot larger and I'd dare say more > attractive to advertisers. The baby boomers that grew up > watching Star Trek make for a nice demographic. > It's their highest rated one-hour drama. This year a couple of the Monday night sitcoms are beating it fairly regularly. -- Michael Ikeda mmikeda@erols.com "Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars" Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association

2003-11-28 17:34:28+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <q4hcsv05dtads8rfb4hmhau7116inhuplc@4ax.com>, William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:51:01 GMT, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <3FC59915.1C74@mindspring.com>, dsbarr@mindspring.com wrote: > > > >> EGK wrote: > > > >> > With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, i've > >> > never been able to understand why they don't try something out of > >> > the ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season straight through > >> > with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running it again the same > >> > way. > >> > > >> > I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where people > >> > are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break between new > >> > episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of the dramatic > >> > like that. > >> > >> Mostly, it's not practical. Given the decision-making schedule and > >> the production requirements, it is not possible to write, film and post 22 > >> weekly episodes in time to run them all in a row within the current > >> season parameters. > > > >So they just start shooting earlier. If they ran the season straight > >through starting in September, they'd be done by February. They could > >start shooting in April and have most of the season done by the next > >September's premiere date. > > For practical (as well as inertia) reasons, they probably won't go > there very soon, but there does seem to be a paradigm shift starting > to occur in the way studios and networks do hour serial dramas. SciFi is already experimenting with Stargate. They run new during the summer, take a break during the major networks big fall premieres, then pick up again after the holidays.

2003-11-29 04:26:23+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Reginald Bautista <rbautista@kc.rr.com>)


"William George Ferguson" <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:q4hcsv05dtads8rfb4hmhau7116inhuplc@4ax.com... > The replacement for the syndication market seems, at this point to be > the season DVD sets. Buffy's season one DVD set wasn't released in > the US until the first 5 seasons had all shown in syndication and on > FX (the old pattern). Angel's season one DVD set came out before its > syndication and cable broadcasts had started. I'm thinking we're > going to see that a lot more, because the studios are changing their > thinking from DVDs being a 'scoop up whatever's left' at the end of > the revenue cycle to DVDs being the number 2 downstream revenue > producer (after foreign market sales). This will move US television more in line with the way it's done in Great Britain and much of the rest of the world. Even with American series like Buffy, the DVDs were out much closer to the original airdate of the individual season. And it's even quicker with VHS tapes. In GBR, the first half of season six (for example) was out before the last half had finished airing (I remember hearing about this when I saw Anthony Stuart Head, aka Giles, on "So Graham Norton" on BBC America). I think the move "to DVDs being the number 2 downstream revenue producer" probably has something to do with the proliferation of channels available on cable and digital satellite. People who really love a show are not as likely to watch the syndicated reruns as they used to be, now that they have so many other choices. For example, I love BtVS but almost never watch the reruns on FX. I just buy the DVD sets as they become available (and as I can afford them -- I'm a little behind right now...). But I don't think syndication will ever go completely away. It's too good of a way to get new viewers for shows, who will then hopefully (from the network's perspective) become addicted and go out and buy the series on DVD. Reggie

2003-12-01 14:50:24+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (Kevin Croxen <klcroxen@ls02.fas.harvard.edu>)


In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0311280919030.703-100000@davidt>, Hank Tiffany wrote: <snip> > > The baby boom was a demographic phenom where the birth rate, > suppressed during the depression shot past previous norms then > returned to, and indeed declined past "normal". Started about > 1942, ended around 1957. > > Teh baby boom generation is an invention of the 80's and is > silly on the face of it. For starters, how can yuo be a real > boomer if you weren't of draft age during the 'nam? My ex-wife Actually, I wasn't draft age during 'Nam, being born in 1955. Nixon terminated the draft the year before my year group would have been eligible. Not that it mattered much. I enlisted. > is a 2nd generation boomer under that silliness (b 1964 to a > mother b 1948). Not to mention that it overlaps the original > definition of gen X (based on 20 year periods since the birth of > the republic). So yuo can be a boomer and an Xer all at once. The best part about the traditional counting of generations, from my Boomer perspective, is that it puts the X-er's out of production ca. 1985. Thus, by having my daughter in 1995 I can feel good by having skipped the Slacker generation entirely. > > I repeat, I was not part of the Baby boom although my older sibs > were. > OK, <wink, wink> your secret's safe with me! >> But either way, you're right about being outside the trendy demographic. >> I think UPN has taken this into account by pitching Enterprise as more of >> a sequel to the NextGen Borg movie (and a bridge to the NextGen series) >> than as any kind of intelligible "prequel" to the original Trek. They >> would prefer to short-circuit the classic Trek and its aging fan base >> completely. I imagine they may complete this process formally at some >> point, with yet another cliched time-travel paradox episode that will >> somehow render the "23rd century" of the classic Trek impossible. > > Oh, Voyager already did that. If NCC-1701 can cover 1000 light years > in a few days (Obsession) and Voyager is gonna take 70+ years just > to cover a measly 70,000 lt yrs, we must be in different universes. > Plus, Classic Trek has no difficulty with speeds in excess of Warp 10 (The Changeling), whereas, we all know from Voyager (even from the first half season before sheer boredom made me give up on it) that Warp 10.0 is impossible. We fans keep track of this sort of stuff for free. You'd think the paid writers could do it. Cheers, --Kevin

2003-12-02 09:42:19+00:00 - Re: No Angel for the next two weeks? - (David Samuel Barr <dsbarr@mindspring.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3FC59915.1C74@mindspring.com>, dsbarr@mindspring.com > wrote: > > > EGK wrote: > > > > With the networks continually whining about ratings going down, > > > i've never been able to understand why they don't try something > > > out of the ordinary like showing the whole 22 episode season > > > straight through with perhaps only holiday breaks then re-running > > > it again the same way. > > > > > > I find this especially good for arc intensive programs where > > > people are bound to lose interest if there's a month long break > > > between new episodes. It's just too hard to maintain a sense of > > > the dramatic like that. > > > > Mostly, it's not practical. Given the decision-making schedule and > > the production requirements, it is not possible to write, film and > > post 22 weekly episodes in time to run them all in a row within the > > current season parameters. > > So they just start shooting earlier. If they ran the season straight > through starting in September, they'd be done by February. They could > start shooting in April and have most of the season done by the next > September's premiere date. This would assume, of course, that the networks change their operating policies along with their schedules and place their show orders no later than February. At the moment, unless a show is so successful that its renewal for a new season is a given early on, the decisions to renew a show or pick up a brand new one usually aren't made until May, just before the season presentations to the affiliates and advertisers. That gives the studios just two months to ramp up the production staffs and start ordering scripts before the cameras start rolling in mid-July; then they spend the next 10 months (usually through mid-April, with a couple of weeks off at Christmastime) working full steam to barely get the episodes done in time for their scheduled airdates, even with the "rerun hell" gaps built in. An April-February shooting schedule wouldn't take any pressure off the process, just possibly give them a bit more lead time at the front end.