FLM films - My Webpage

1996-10-24 00:00:00 - Ratings not too bad... - (whe1@cornell.edu)


Hey I read in USA Today that Sliders was ranked 74th, and that it was the second highest ranked non-baseball show on Fox. Of course X-files was ranked highest. I guess we'll see how Sliders fares when X-files moves to Sunday. Still it's good news. People are watching. I mean, Sliders has its problems. Most notably, it has an abysmal track record on sciencific and historical correctness, but I really like the main characters. It's like ST:TOS; the science on that show was questionable, but you forgave it because of Kirk, Spock and Bones. : : : Stepping off my soap box : Willi

1996-10-25 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (sjohnmackey@juno.com)


On 24 Oct 1996 13:35:02 GMT, whe1@cornell.edu (Wilhelm Elmore) wrote: >Hey > >I read in USA Today that Sliders was ranked 74th, and that it was the second >highest ranked non-baseball show on Fox. Of course X-files was ranked highest. I >guess we'll see how Sliders fares when X-files moves to Sunday. Still it's good >news. People are watching. I mean, Sliders has its problems. Most notably, it >has an abysmal track record on sciencific and historical correctness, but I >really like the main characters. It's like ST:TOS; the science on that show was >questionable, but you forgave it because of Kirk, Spock and Bones. > >: > : > : Stepping off my soap box > : > >Willi Also, I would suspect that Fox isn't really anxious to Ax any project that has a couple years history. I think they are the only of the Networks now that are giving their current line-up a chance, rather than "wiping the slate clean" every few months looking for an "instant hit". Besides, it seems that the majority of Fox's 1 hour shows are all designed to reach very specific demographic audiences, instead of trying to capture the "wider, but less specific" following. For instance, Sliders, X-Files, 90210, Melrose Place all seem to target specific "buying groups"... Compare that "production appeal" to say E.R., 60 Minutes, or Early Edition. It's not the ratings, it's the money, they need. For instance, "V" back in the 80's on NBC could have amassed a reasonable following had the Network given it another season. With Fox still considered the "incomplete network", anything that represents "familiarity or history" will be held onto dearly. Look at Married with Children (if you can with out losing your lunch); Fox is wearing a BIG FEATHER in it's cap that it can claim it is longest running the comedy currently on the air.

1996-10-26 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (puz1@aol.com)


In article <326ff4c7.94148245@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, sjohnmackey@juno.com (sjohnmackey@juno.com) writes: > It's not the ratings, it's the money, they need. ***But, the two are intertwined; it's the ratings that bring in the advertisers who bring their $$$$$ to the party known as commercial television. ;) Smooth Sliding, AnnieM Puz1@aol.com

1996-10-26 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (regnery@ix.netcom.com)


On 26 Oct 1996 07:49:07 -0400, puz1@aol.com (Puz1) wrote: >In article <326ff4c7.94148245@news.rdu.bellsouth.net>, >sjohnmackey@juno.com (sjohnmackey@juno.com) writes: > >> It's not the ratings, it's the money, they need. > >***But, the two are intertwined; it's the ratings that bring in the >advertisers who bring their $$$$$ to the party known as commercial >television. ;) Correct, but it isn't one to one. Higher ratings don't always imply higher advertising revenues. Many Fox shows command higher ad revenues than other shows in the same timeslot that have more viewers, because Fox's viewers tend to be younger, and thus more likely to purchase items based on the advertisements. Also, you have to look at production costs as well, because Fox wants profits, not revenues. George M. Regnery | Geschichte ist keine Abfolge von Daten sondern ein sich ------------------+ ueber die Dimension der Zeit erstreckendes Netz in welchem Vergagenheit, Gegenwart & Zukunf zusammengewoben sind als Schicksal. Links for Corporate Information: http://www.netcom.com/~regnery/corporate.html

1996-10-28 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (puz1@aol.com)


In article <327241b6.571714@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, regnery@ix.netcom.com (George Matthew Regnery) writes: >Correct, but it isn't one to one. Higher ratings don't always imply >higher advertising revenues. Many Fox shows command higher ad >revenues than other shows in the same timeslot that have more viewers, >because Fox's viewers tend to be younger, and thus more likely to >purchase items based on the advertisements. ***Yes, this is true; I would imagine the demos pulled in by something like "The X-Files" would be more desirable to advertisers than, say, those brought in by whatever Sunday night movie it may be up against. >Also, you have to look at production costs as well, because Fox wants profits, not revenues. ***True again; "Sliders" has usually done fairly respectably in the ratings (it brought in higher #'s after "90210" than "Party of Five", and I believe it has so far fared the best in the Friday 8pm slot than anything Fox has had there in the past couple of years), _but_, it's easy to see the cost cutting measures taken on "Sliders" when looking at episodes going from Season 1 through Season 3: replacing Mark Mothersbaugh's theme from Season 1 (to save on royalties, I would imagine?), having the actors "slide" off-camera, etc., etc., etc. I _am_ curious about one thing; does anyone know if it is cheaper to shoot in CA or Vancouver? Smooth Sliding Whatever Your Dimension, AnnieM Puz1@aol.com

1996-11-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (Reepicheep <gfz@usaor.net>)


"V" was originally a TV mini-series with (I believe it was) four-two hour episodes. Sci-Fi channel has recently been replaying the shows as one hour episodes. I have caught a couple of the replays, and despite it being years ago when it played originally, I seem to remember a lot. It must have made quite an impression! -- ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Gary F. Zeolla ><> ><> ><> ><> gfz@usaor.net ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> Spunkie <spunkie@geocities.com> wrote in article <327B2A78.7DAA@geocities.com>... > sjohnmackey@juno.com wrote: > > It's not the ratings, it's the > > money, they need. For instance, "V" back in the 80's... > > This is totally unrelated to Sliders. > I remember that show (V). Was it a show or was it like a mini-series > movie? I watched that lots when I was a kid. Thought it was pretty cool > when people got blasted with lasers and the bad guys ripped their human > skin of and revealed their true reptilian skin. Those small mice sure > make a good crunchy meal, huh? > > >

1996-11-04 00:00:00 - Re: Ratings not too bad... - (regnery@ix.netcom.com)


On 4 Nov 1996 01:42:24 GMT, "Reepicheep" <gfz@usaor.net> wrote: >"V" was originally a TV mini-series with (I believe it was) four-two hour >episodes. Sci-Fi channel has recently been replaying the shows as one hour >episodes. I have caught a couple of the replays, and despite it being years ago >when it played originally, I seem to remember a lot. It must have made quite an >impression! V was 10 hours not eight. And Sci-Fi channel recently re-ran the miniseries in 2 hour increments, and then ran the TV series (19 episodes) in 1 hour increments, as that's how they were made. -- George M. Regnery | "Geschichte ist keine Abfolge von Daten sondern ein sich ------------------+ ueber die Dimension der Zeit erstreckendes Netz in welchem Vergagenheit, Gegenwart & Zukunf zusammengewoben sind als Schicksal."-- Cusco Links for Corporate Information: http://www.netcom.com/~regnery/corporate.html