|
|
Post by novium on Nov 5, 2008 17:16:39 GMT -5
that link says, "the rare CW press release in praise of a night not aimed at 18-34 year old women:"
but how is supernatural not aimed at women? It's practically the very definition of estrogen brigade bait. From TVTropes:
Hot male lead? check
Dark and troubled past? check.
Troubled but cute? check.
sexy voice? eh, sure. check.
look good shirtless? check
Woobie? hell no- they are the gods of woobiedom. check the trope pantheon.
ho-yay? guilty as charged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Nov 5, 2008 17:26:53 GMT -5
Oddly enough, despite that Supernatural only really draws in the guys, like Reaper does. There have been some fairly controversial moves there to "girl it up" by adding female characters, much like what they've said they're doing to Reaper too.
|
|
|
|
Post by novium on Nov 5, 2008 18:07:08 GMT -5
really? The only people I know who watch supernatural are girls...not to mention that pretty much every mention of them on tvtropes involves mentions of their attractiveness and squeeing fan girls.
|
|
|
|
Post by pending on Nov 10, 2008 8:59:13 GMT -5
I think with SPN it sort of makes sense both ways... I mean, I lost interest after a certain point because the female characters were so lame I couldn't really take it anymore. Lots of the episodes were good and scary, but then they'd go into some long stretch of their season arc and I was just bored to tears. Dean and Sam are lots of fun to look at, but that alone can't support interest forever.
While there may be a hardcore squeeing fangirl base, I'm betting they're a lot louder on the internet than they are in the Nielsons.
|
|
|
|
Post by cko on Nov 10, 2008 16:36:17 GMT -5
I've got to start watching Supernatural. With everything I've heard about it since I first heard of it, I just can't figure out how one show can be all the things people say it is: cute guys, scary plots, stupid twists, awesome arcs, boring arcs, ridiculous premises, cute guys, touching relationships, weak storylines...etc, etc.
Just my luck I'll fall in love with it just as it's being cancelled.
|
|
|
|
Post by pending on Nov 10, 2008 18:28:15 GMT -5
ALL OF THE ABOVE. Seriously. It's one of those shows where they have *only* fantastic and terrible writers (although in season 1 they had some fantastically terrible writers... The "killer racist truck" episode will forever be testament to their greatness.) so one show you're enjoying your cute guys and awesome arc, and then the next one a terrible writer comes along and you suddenly realize how stupid the arc actually is, via some incredibly stupid plot twist. Though you may still enjoy the cute guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by novium on Nov 19, 2008 18:18:01 GMT -5
yes, that helps, I think. I just got into the show recently. And while there are scenes and episodes of awesomeness, there's also a lot of....not so awesome stuff. And angst. yuck. During those bits, i just turn my brain off and admire the various attractive guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Nov 20, 2008 21:45:53 GMT -5
I hope this means the CW has a better plan in mind for Reaper but it seems they've pulled the whole farmed out Sunday night lineup and are replacing it with reruns of Jericho, Everybody Hates Chris, random movies and the Drew Carey Show. Reaper reruns or even season two properly promoted might have worked. Sunday night isn't a bad night. It's still like Reaper doesn't exist, never a word about them from the network. |
|
|
|
Post by cko on Nov 20, 2008 22:28:01 GMT -5
I'm actually really starting to worry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Dec 18, 2008 1:12:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Dec 18, 2008 23:33:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Dec 19, 2008 17:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Dec 19, 2008 18:20:37 GMT -5
THAT was frakking awesome.  |
|
|
|
Post by pending on Dec 20, 2008 15:37:27 GMT -5
Loved it. Now I can't stop thinking about how hilarious 'Star Trek: The Academy Years' through the lense of the CW would be. If it weren't for the fact that the creation of that show would kill my Trekkie friends dead, I would drop out of school right now and make said show my life's work.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Dec 20, 2008 17:06:42 GMT -5
I know, I think all that blogger's ideas for new shows were very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinflight on Dec 23, 2008 12:03:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cko on Dec 23, 2008 13:17:24 GMT -5
Cool links, LIF, thanks for those. As always, mixed news. BTW: 1) If you want to hide the urls...heck, I can't figure out how to explain it; maybe pace can? 2) Let us know what's new with you! School, pets, driving? New music? |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Jan 16, 2009 1:23:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger97 on Jan 16, 2009 1:53:54 GMT -5
No one watches the network as it is. And who reads TVGuide anymore, especially for the listings? I wouldn't worry about it. |
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Jan 16, 2009 11:53:22 GMT -5
Can you tell me what you're talking about? I know it was from Variety but I couldn't get the page to load.
|
|
|
|
Post by cko on Jan 16, 2009 12:15:16 GMT -5
"TV Guide, the struggling magazine...has mysteriously dumped the listings for youth-oriented channels the CW and MTV. For a publication that has heavily covered MTV staples like "The Hills" and CW phenoms like "Gossip Girl," the move was head-scratching."
|
|
|
|
Post by pending on Jan 16, 2009 14:24:57 GMT -5
I'm not freaked; as the article points out, nobody reads TV guide anymore (especially not the TiVo people who give us the high post-airing viewing numbers) and the last paragraph makes a good case for why the whole thing might just be a power play:
"Relationships do appear to be playing a role. The mag dumped its TV Guide Network listings the moment the two companies were separated. And while it may seem strange that there's room in TV Guide for QVC listings -- offering up shows including "Marie Osmond Dolls" and "Limited Quality Linens" -- the home shopping channel is a frequent advertiser in the magazine."
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Jan 16, 2009 15:09:05 GMT -5
People *do* read TVGuide though. It's sales may be down, but its readability is not. It's always been more of a "read but not buy while standing in line to purchase your stuff".
Not to mention the people who idly see the covers. That's a selling point too. It would have been nice if Reaper could have got the cover in March, considering it's pretty much the only news happening at that particular point.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Jan 16, 2009 16:34:47 GMT -5
Nah, the print edition is for old people. The only times I've bought one in the last several years was for some cover story, not the listings. Reaper was never going to get the cover anyway. People who watch CW get their listings from their onscreen guides or the internet. We don't even use our newspaper listings anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by pending on Jan 17, 2009 12:11:59 GMT -5
It's not entirely out of the range of possibility, the article mentions how at the same time as the drop from listings is taking place, TV guide is running a showpiece article about Smallville. But either way, I haven't seen TV Guide in a check-out line in ages, so I couldn't even tell you what the last few shows on the cover were. Knock wood, but if I had to guess which would go first, print TV guide or the CW, my money would be on TV guide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Feb 6, 2009 1:01:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Feb 6, 2009 8:54:58 GMT -5
So, they're going for the Twilight fangirls? They should pair that show with Reaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacejunkie on Mar 26, 2009 15:01:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Sunflower on Sept 9, 2009 17:55:40 GMT -5
I thought some would like to know that last night's premieres of 90210 and Melrose Place got 2.6 and 2.3 million respectively. Apparently, 90210's numbers are the highest since last winter (and with a 2.6 start, will most likely settle into the 1 millions *this* winter), and MP's numbers are being called "disappointing". ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/09/09/melrose-place-ratings-snapshot-disappointing/ |
|
|
|
Post by wdpender on Sept 10, 2009 18:56:25 GMT -5
This one probably does not belong under this thread, but here goes.
Now I'm really mad about Reaper being cancelled. Did anyone see this?:
Nick at Nite’s latest prime-time addition to its family-programming lineup, Everybody Hates Chris (Monday, Sept. 7, 10 p.m. ET/PT), scored 1.8 million total viewers in its Labor Day premiere.
That is about 50% more than the number that usually watched the show in first run on the CW!! This really hammers home how pathetic the CW really is.
|
|
