FLM films - My Webpage

2001-03-21 10:22:40+00:00 - OL at buttom of the barrel?! - ("Art J." <art@nospamindspring.com>)


Unless I misinterpret this, while browsing around on SciFi's webpage (like on 'SciFi Wire'), I noticed their "TOP 10 SF syndicated TV Shows" list OL at what appears to be, next to the bottum of the barrel, along with Invisible Man in what I'm assuming might be RATINGS, which both are at about 1.7. The ones with the highest ratings listed, having THE X-FILES at the top of this list, with a 4.0. I cant hardly believe XENA's beating out OL, with a 3.5? Or better yet, SHEENA, with a 1.8?! That, just somehow sounds rediculously screwed up! If what people watch, are actually being determined by this NIELSON system, then theres just too many people out there, who prefer big-busty women, running around in their 1million years b.c.-raquel weltch-style, loin cloth, and bra, with what seems like a comic book character-type role, whos' producers prefer more close ups of their cleavage, and plenty of pointless running sequences (because at such a point, I'm guessing, half of the viewer's probably wouldnt be paying too much attention to anything else they'd be saying, much less if there actually even WAS a story to it), then having watch a series, with convincing acting, wonderful dialog, and mesmerizingly awsome stories, that also have a point for the viewers pleasure!

2001-03-21 10:43:15+00:00 - Re: OL at buttom of the barrel?! - (jtnews <jtnews@optonline.net>)


Yes, the babe factor is very important in determining the success of any TV program. I must admit I watch some shows only for the nice looking women in them and couldn't care less about the plot. That's the only reason why I watch Star Trek Voyager. I only like to see 7 of 9. "Art J." wrote: > > Unless I misinterpret this, while browsing around on SciFi's webpage (like on > 'SciFi Wire'), I noticed their "TOP 10 SF syndicated TV Shows" list OL at > what appears to be, next to the bottum of the barrel, along with Invisible > Man in what I'm assuming might be RATINGS, which both are at about 1.7. The > ones with the highest ratings listed, having THE X-FILES at the top of this > list, with a 4.0. I cant hardly believe XENA's beating out OL, with a 3.5? Or > better yet, SHEENA, with a 1.8?! That, just somehow sounds rediculously > screwed up! > > If what people watch, are actually being determined by this NIELSON system, > then theres just too many people out there, who prefer big-busty women, > running around in their 1million years b.c.-raquel weltch-style, loin cloth, > and bra, with what seems like a comic book character-type role, whos' > producers prefer more close ups of their cleavage, and plenty of pointless > running sequences (because at such a point, I'm guessing, half of the > viewer's probably wouldnt be paying too much attention to anything else > they'd be saying, much less if there actually even WAS a story to it), then > having watch a series, with convincing acting, wonderful dialog, and > mesmerizingly awsome stories, that also have a point for the viewers > pleasure!

2001-03-21 19:11:37+00:00 - Re: OL at buttom of the barrel?! - (jtnews <jtnews@optonline.net>)


Oh, I also watch CNBC everyday just to see Maria Bartiromo. I hope Martha McCallum comes back. jtnews wrote: > > Yes, the babe factor is very important > in determining the success of any > TV program. I must admit I watch > some shows only for the nice looking > women in them and couldn't care less about > the plot. That's the only reason why I watch > Star Trek Voyager. I only like to see 7 of 9. > > "Art J." wrote: > > > > Unless I misinterpret this, while browsing around on SciFi's webpage (like on > > 'SciFi Wire'), I noticed their "TOP 10 SF syndicated TV Shows" list OL at > > what appears to be, next to the bottum of the barrel, along with Invisible > > Man in what I'm assuming might be RATINGS, which both are at about 1.7. The > > ones with the highest ratings listed, having THE X-FILES at the top of this > > list, with a 4.0. I cant hardly believe XENA's beating out OL, with a 3.5? Or > > better yet, SHEENA, with a 1.8?! That, just somehow sounds rediculously > > screwed up! > > > > If what people watch, are actually being determined by this NIELSON system, > > then theres just too many people out there, who prefer big-busty women, > > running around in their 1million years b.c.-raquel weltch-style, loin cloth, > > and bra, with what seems like a comic book character-type role, whos' > > producers prefer more close ups of their cleavage, and plenty of pointless > > running sequences (because at such a point, I'm guessing, half of the > > viewer's probably wouldnt be paying too much attention to anything else > > they'd be saying, much less if there actually even WAS a story to it), then > > having watch a series, with convincing acting, wonderful dialog, and > > mesmerizingly awsome stories, that also have a point for the viewers > > pleasure!

2001-03-22 03:29:05+00:00 - Re: OL at buttom of the barrel?! - ("Art J." <art@nospamindspring.com>)


It does seem to be important for almost any TV series, to have that sexuality factor, were you have a cast thats appealing to both genders watching, thats not exactly what seems to cheapen the series though. It's when they put noticable attention to the casts apparel, making sure that the female portion of the cast seem to almost deliborately wear low-fitting blouse, or shirt, and probably even tight-fitting pants. And alot of times, typically, these female roles also involve playing inept characters, who almost always ending up taking that wrong turn, down the wrong road, or walk down the wrong hall way, or street corner, basically, walking into trouble, which seems to create a comic effect. But I think it has been proven before, that you dont necessarily need to have this, to be able to successfully grab and maintain ratings, or an audience ....well, ANYway. I just thought OL might deserve better than a 1.7, I mean, as far as it goes, OL has its share a very attrative female cast alot of times too, in fact, you'd think because it was on showtime, a network of which can show sexual situations, and nudity, etc., would have given the show a good share of ratings. On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 10:43:15 GMT, jtnews wrote: >Yes, the babe factor is very important >in determining the success of any >TV program. I must admit I watch >some shows only for the nice looking >women in them and couldn't care less about >the plot. That's the only reason why I watch >Star Trek Voyager. I only like to see 7 of 9. > >"Art J." wrote: >> >> Unless I misinterpret this, while browsing around on SciFi's webpage (like on >> 'SciFi Wire'), I noticed their "TOP 10 SF syndicated TV Shows" list OL at >> what appears to be, next to the bottum of the barrel, along with Invisible >> Man in what I'm assuming might be RATINGS, which both are at about 1.7. The >> ones with the highest ratings listed, having THE X-FILES at the top of this >> list, with a 4.0. I cant hardly believe XENA's beating out OL, with a 3.5? Or >> better yet, SHEENA, with a 1.8?! That, just somehow sounds rediculously >> screwed up! >> >> If what people watch, are actually being determined by this NIELSON system, >> then theres just too many people out there, who prefer big-busty women, >> running around in their 1million years b.c.-raquel weltch-style, loin cloth, >> and bra, with what seems like a comic book character-type role, whos' >> producers prefer more close ups of their cleavage, and plenty of pointless >> running sequences (because at such a point, I'm guessing, half of the >> viewer's probably wouldnt be paying too much attention to anything else >> they'd be saying, much less if there actually even WAS a story to it), then >> having watch a series, with convincing acting, wonderful dialog, and >> mesmerizingly awsome stories, that also have a point for the viewers >> pleasure!

2001-03-27 05:13:03+00:00 - Re: OL at buttom of the barrel?! - (Dan Hartung <dhartung@spamcop.net>)


"Art J." <art@nospamindspring.com> wrote in message news:nabalzbhfflfgrzpbz.gajje50.pminews@news.earthlink.net... > Unless I misinterpret this, while browsing around on SciFi's webpage (like on > 'SciFi Wire'), I noticed their "TOP 10 SF syndicated TV Shows" list OL at > what appears to be, next to the bottum of the barrel, along with Invisible > Man in what I'm assuming might be RATINGS, which both are at about 1.7. The > ones with the highest ratings listed, having THE X-FILES at the top of this > list, with a 4.0. I cant hardly believe XENA's beating out OL, with a 3.5? Or > better yet, SHEENA, with a 1.8?! That, just somehow sounds rediculously > screwed up! Xena is a fun show, with lots of guaranteed action and humor. It has fans that go way beyond genre viewers. Additionally, the syndicated OL has already had many chances to be seen by cable subscribers. It's very cheap to syndicate like this because it's already "paid for" -- until this year, first by Showtime and then by USA/SciFi. This is also a factor that will limit the number of local stations that run the series. I wouldn't really get worked up over it. The syndicated revenues are just gravy. > If what people watch, are actually being determined by this NIELSON system, Well, only indirectly. It's determined by whether the ad revenues can cover the cost of buying the show, complicated by a number of factors including lead-ins and competition. > then theres just too many people out there, who prefer big-busty women, > running around in their 1million years b.c.-raquel weltch-style, loin cloth, > and bra, with what seems like a comic book character-type role, whos' > producers prefer more close ups of their cleavage, and plenty of pointless > running sequences (because at such a point, I'm guessing, half of the > viewer's probably wouldnt be paying too much attention to anything else > they'd be saying, much less if there actually even WAS a story to it), then > having watch a series, with convincing acting, wonderful dialog, and > mesmerizingly awsome stories, that also have a point for the viewers > pleasure! Don't get too full of yourself. Xena is great entertainment; really, trust me on this one. The bust factor is there, yes, but Hercules did pretty well too with the sixpack factor.