Batwoman - Season 1

Avengers, Batman, Superman, etc Discussion about comic mainstream movies and TV shows.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Along with Warner Bros, CBS is also co-owner of the CW (Just a bit of trivia for those who don't know).

From Variety, May 18 2016...
CBS president Glenn Geller said [about Supergirl show move to the CW] Wednesday morning at a press conference at the network’s New York City headquarters. “I think it found the right home. It’s a win-win for us. We co-own the CW and we made a great deal with Warner Bros.”
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
Dogfish
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: 10 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Dogfish wrote:
3 years ago
In Batwoman they don't manage to tap into a fraction of that screen presence.
I don't think she ever had big screen presence personally. The reason you were hanging on her every word in Wick was her character was a mute. I don't mean that facetiously, I mean you were waiting for her to say something until that was revealed

I've seen her in 3 or 4 films and her character runs the whole gamut of emotions from moody and sullen to sullen and moody. That will only get you so far. I have only seen first two episodes of this... Where she played someone sullen and moody, but in fairness from what the other members have said, she did seem to be showing some range. Not immediately obvious from her film work.
Maybe she found the acting too tough rather than the stunt work.

(I should stress I plan to see the whole series I just haven't yet, it's not down to her.)
I figured she was in a lot of rubbish stuff which is why, as I said I saw her in a Resident Evil movie, those things always stink out loud.

In John Wick 2 you're right that she doesn't speak and that makes her interesting, but I also thought the way she looked made her really striking. She's way more interesting in that movie than you'd expect from just a random silent hot woman.

Maybe she needs to talk less.

Not helped by the nature of the show as a family drama although I'm informed this is fairly usual for the CW. Other folks have made comparisons to the 1960s series and to be honest, while a lot of it wouldn't update to today, the fundamental formula of two episode stories with the first two acts in the first episode and the third in the next one would be a perfect fit. You don't need to go all in on family and relationships and so on, just a couple of villains every couple of weeks. And have them come back because Arkham is leaky.
brdiy
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 472
Joined: 14 years ago

From the looks of it, CW is just fine as long as their shows hit just over 0.5 Million viewers. Most of their superhero shows are hitting these numbers as is, so I don't expect to see any dramatic changes in the way these shows are written in the foreseeable future. CW will just be happy churning out the same old, same old (garbage?) rather than risk experimenting with new formula. Tough luck.
Check out my superheroine-related short stories here:

https://archiveofourown.org/users/brdiy/works
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

Maskripper wrote:
3 years ago
And I get the impression that in your view..... the LGBT community is some sort of villain and tries to take all the fun away for the straight people by forcing their "agendas" onto them.
Am I right about that?
That question is a Straw man.
What some people do does not represent a group. I should have been more specific and stated "the people who claim to stick up for LGBT who want these characters", So yes sloppy on my part.

But its what you just did with your strawman comment that keeps people fighting each other. Don't champion someone else's cause to use it like this. Issue hijacking is not a pretty thing. There is no vast conspiracy to hate the gays.

But back to your comment about complaining. Who complains there aren't enough LGBT on a show? Not enough diversity, Ruby not being lesbian enough. Not enough SHIP and so forth. Who gets the vapors whenever anything is said that can be bent to be seen as an insult or slight?

I think the real problem here is not any LGBT asking for these kinds of show but the people who claim to champion these groups looking to pick fights by asking where's this group or that group like everything made is communal property.

Don't use someone else's issue to pick a fight... its not there.
Last edited by Mr. X 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago

It depends upon how much they believe in the show and what they have in the pipeline. Yes, I totally agree with you that as a series gets older there is viewer erosion, but I think the massive viewer erosion that has enveloped all of broadcast television and cable as well has lowered the ratings/success threshold considerably. We are not living in 1985 anymore, and heck we are not living in 2015 anymore either. It's a whole new media landscape nowadays where execs don't sweat a 0.5 if the show has a decent 18 to 34 demographic. Ratings numbers that would have been regarded as a show's death sentence 5 or 10 years ago are now enough to sustain a series and keep it around a while. That is the reality of having 500 channels and a number of thriving streaming services that compete for eyeballs in this competitive media environment. I really cannot fathom you comparing a first year number for a series on CBS to a first year number on the CW. There is a tremendous difference in the reach and viewers of both platforms. CBS is a major broadcast network while the CW is a fledgling fifth network with a lot more weak affiliates then CBS, that CW is only a qualitative sturdy step up from a basic cable station.

Well, you are right about one thing, studio don't sweat over rating that much anymore, but they still will if the number is very low. It does not matter if It was on CBS or CW, you still need to pay to get TV series produce, and it cost a lot more than movie these days, so at the end of the day, you still need to justify it with rating and viewership, I don't think any studio would just green light a series simply because they felt good..

Of course, nowadays we have DVR and Streaming, but those revenue aren't exactly much since the ads package are very different and again, when a new series going to get this kind of number, anyone up there would think, is there are something wrong with the series.

Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to wish ill for Batwoman, in fact, I liked it and I watched it (as it feature fellow Australian Ruby Rose) but the program is a bit not to everyone taste on a already specific genre, and unless something was done. I can only see Batwoman slide down the cliff. and if they (the big exec) are not worry about 0.5, then they probably would when it hit 0.4 or 0.3.But that would be another discussion altogether.
Boy, I went to bed thinking after reading Scribbler's post where it clearly showed Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the most important and relevant 18 to 49 demographic, I thought it was a Scribbler mic drop end of story. Here in the U.S, 0.5 is not the relevant number for a fledgling network such as the CW. CW is not a seven network, nine network, or network 10 in your neck of the woods, it almost exclusively targets the young demos. It's kind of like the sort of wrestling war happening on Wednesday nights her in the states. TNT has AEW wrestling going against NXT on the USA network. NXT is getting a better rating and averaging better ratings some weeks, that it goes back and forth, but AEW is clearly winning in the important young 18 to 34 demos, and most experts because of that demo win declare AEW the clear winner in the war. Make no mistake about it, AEW getting a three year extension is thanks to the demographic victories, not due to the performance among total viewer or ratings average.
To be honest, I never watched channel seven (although I work as one of their show producer, producing one of their segment in the Sunrise show, and I used to work for channel nine, which I preferred, but well, seven paid more and I needed the money...anyway..)

I speak on my own experience as a AP in one of the major network in Australia, maskripper said did not actually make sense when he compare a first year show to a 4th or 5th years, because when you deal with actor, you don't just think of "now", or what is going on this season, if you do that, you probably have cancelled your own show, every story you write is for a series of actors (not just one) to keep on playing their role, so when you write a show, you think of it 2 or 3 or may even be 5 years down the road.

So if I am producing a show, especially a new show, I look at the number and look at how feasible that would be, not just this year, but subsequently as well. That is why I said the show first year mediocre rating (we should at least agree the rating for batwoman is mediocre, shall we?) And that would affect the program get funding, that is because it WILL BE worse in the second year, and the third, if there are the third year.

Even tho today is 2020, not 2000, the rating is still relevant, even tho not too many people watch TV anymore. The problem is, the alternative is actually worst. I can sell a show to Netflix and get around 1 or 2 dollars per play, or if they buy it outright, I may get around 600,000 to 1 millions rights + residual, however, those are peanuts when you compare to network syndication and international broadcast right. Because say for example, if Channel 7 here in Oz want to buy the right to SG, they will need to negotiate right + residual, if I remember correctly, Fox bought the right of SG for $400,000 + residual with an unknown percentage. And that's channel specific, sometime they pay more, sometime less, but that is per channel. But at the end of the day, channel buys right does not looks at streaming platform, they still looks at stuff like accolade and rating. I mean, it's generally no one internationally will buy a show that done poorly in the US in terms of rating.

As for why you cannot compare a freshmen show and a veteran show? The answer is quite simple, and it's only one word. - Rerun, for a veteran show, you can afford to get low rating but that is not the same for a new show..

Re-run is probably second best (if not actually the best) way to earn money for a show, because when you rerun, you still need to pay for the show, either in a contractual rerun or residual, but since you already have produced the show, you, as the production company, pay nothing (except for a certain % of the actor retained residual) If I remember correctly, Friends earns like 20 times more money in reruns than when it was broadcasted originally in NBC, for example, Netflix signed a 120 millions, 2 years deal on all 10 season of Friends rerun during 2018-2020, I don't think the show have earn $120 millions on its entirely first run for WB?

This is not the same at all with sport program, they have another issue related and their payment are calculated separately than TV shows. For starter, there are no production cost for a sporting program, it's the same reason why reality show is a hit now, because there are next to nothing production cost.
The interesting thing about your Friends example is that NBC sees virtually nothing of that syndication money because they do not own the series, that I believe Warner media and it's predecessor Warner Brothers got that loot. Traditionally speaking sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld are able to make big scores in syndication, that hour long dramas are not nearly as successful in pulling in that kind of revenue. While there are scores of examples of shows that basically shoot most of their creative wad in the first season, then run out of creative gas and cruise along, that is not always the case. There are a lot of examples of shows that find their true creative voice in season 2 or 3, and that creative growth spurs word of mouth, which spurs increased ratings relative to how other shows are performing in an industry that is losing quite a bit of its market share of the audience. That is where streaming services really pay off for shows, allowing people to catch up on the first season or so they may have missed. A lot of people (including me) missed the first season of Breaking Bad but I was able to catch up with the series and creator Vince Gilligan credited Netflix as a key element in the growth and popularity of the series because of that dynamic. You don't get to be a veteran show if you whack all of your shows after one season! Also keep this in mind, if you check out Scribbler's chart, Ava, that the Scribbler was kind enough to post on this thread it shows Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the all important 18 to 49 demos as well as total viewers, so tell me how it would look if the powers that be at the CW gave Supergirl a renewal order and cancelled Batwoman, how would the optics of that look like? You would have LGBTQ groups in an uproar decrying the fact that you renewed straight beautiful White straight heterosexual superheroine's show while you jettisoned a higher rated show with a lesbian character as the lead. There would be people protesting outside those CW offices tomorrow, they would be outside their with pitchforks and broomsticks ready for battle demanding a reversal of that decision and the firing of the CW head honcho. I think that we can all agree that would not be a good look for any company looking to be seen as inclusive and caring for the plight of minorities.
lol, as I said, I am standing on the TV production point of view, not the network (Network don't produce TV show since 1970s). Friends was created and produced by WB Studio, and WB got all the loot. NBC is just a network, they got some of it, especially with prime time advert sale, but all the residual things were with WB. But yeah, WB charges $500,000 per episode just on license fee alone for rerun, and considering Friends have 238 episode, so a contract would be about 120 millions per year deal, that is just one year and one network. As I said, I don't think WB have ever seen this much money on Friends when they make their original network

I am not opposing or hating or anything with Batwoman. I am just saying the show itself have some problem and that is mostly the reason with the low rating and star leaving, whether or not Batwoman will be cancelled is another issue, I am merely saying if the road continue this way, casting another lead would not help, heck, even the action of recasting hurt the show reputation. There are a lot of stuff Berlanti have to work on, if they want to see this beyond season 3.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
...There are a lot of stuff Berlanti have to work on, if they want to see this beyond season 3.
If the CW continues to run its superhero shows as it has been, and enough 18 to 49 year olds watch (by CW low standards), and if Supergirl show is anything to go by, then even if Batwoman stays as meh to bad as it was this season, it will still be a sure thing to go beyond Season Three.

It may even turn out to be the #2 CW show next season (since Arrow and Supernatural have gone away)! Altho I'm thinking Superman & Lois will take that spot.

CW new 'fall' season starts jan 2021.png
CW new 'fall' season starts jan 2021.png (93.84 KiB) Viewed 4295 times

And yeah, they should work on it. Make it way better. Hope they do that. Unfortunately, they don't have to. They can coast if they want. Or they can try really hard to make it great and still have it end up meh. Unless it turns into an utter disaster, beyond Season Three is pretty much a given.

BTW, I think Ruby left the show cause she's seen the show! She doesn't want to be stuck doing crap for years to come. And being the main #1 person identified with it. Best to get out now!
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago



Well, you are right about one thing, studio don't sweat over rating that much anymore, but they still will if the number is very low. It does not matter if It was on CBS or CW, you still need to pay to get TV series produce, and it cost a lot more than movie these days, so at the end of the day, you still need to justify it with rating and viewership, I don't think any studio would just green light a series simply because they felt good..

Of course, nowadays we have DVR and Streaming, but those revenue aren't exactly much since the ads package are very different and again, when a new series going to get this kind of number, anyone up there would think, is there are something wrong with the series.

Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to wish ill for Batwoman, in fact, I liked it and I watched it (as it feature fellow Australian Ruby Rose) but the program is a bit not to everyone taste on a already specific genre, and unless something was done. I can only see Batwoman slide down the cliff. and if they (the big exec) are not worry about 0.5, then they probably would when it hit 0.4 or 0.3.But that would be another discussion altogether.
Boy, I went to bed thinking after reading Scribbler's post where it clearly showed Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the most important and relevant 18 to 49 demographic, I thought it was a Scribbler mic drop end of story. Here in the U.S, 0.5 is not the relevant number for a fledgling network such as the CW. CW is not a seven network, nine network, or network 10 in your neck of the woods, it almost exclusively targets the young demos. It's kind of like the sort of wrestling war happening on Wednesday nights her in the states. TNT has AEW wrestling going against NXT on the USA network. NXT is getting a better rating and averaging better ratings some weeks, that it goes back and forth, but AEW is clearly winning in the important young 18 to 34 demos, and most experts because of that demo win declare AEW the clear winner in the war. Make no mistake about it, AEW getting a three year extension is thanks to the demographic victories, not due to the performance among total viewer or ratings average.
To be honest, I never watched channel seven (although I work as one of their show producer, producing one of their segment in the Sunrise show, and I used to work for channel nine, which I preferred, but well, seven paid more and I needed the money...anyway..)

I speak on my own experience as a AP in one of the major network in Australia, maskripper said did not actually make sense when he compare a first year show to a 4th or 5th years, because when you deal with actor, you don't just think of "now", or what is going on this season, if you do that, you probably have cancelled your own show, every story you write is for a series of actors (not just one) to keep on playing their role, so when you write a show, you think of it 2 or 3 or may even be 5 years down the road.

So if I am producing a show, especially a new show, I look at the number and look at how feasible that would be, not just this year, but subsequently as well. That is why I said the show first year mediocre rating (we should at least agree the rating for batwoman is mediocre, shall we?) And that would affect the program get funding, that is because it WILL BE worse in the second year, and the third, if there are the third year.

Even tho today is 2020, not 2000, the rating is still relevant, even tho not too many people watch TV anymore. The problem is, the alternative is actually worst. I can sell a show to Netflix and get around 1 or 2 dollars per play, or if they buy it outright, I may get around 600,000 to 1 millions rights + residual, however, those are peanuts when you compare to network syndication and international broadcast right. Because say for example, if Channel 7 here in Oz want to buy the right to SG, they will need to negotiate right + residual, if I remember correctly, Fox bought the right of SG for $400,000 + residual with an unknown percentage. And that's channel specific, sometime they pay more, sometime less, but that is per channel. But at the end of the day, channel buys right does not looks at streaming platform, they still looks at stuff like accolade and rating. I mean, it's generally no one internationally will buy a show that done poorly in the US in terms of rating.

As for why you cannot compare a freshmen show and a veteran show? The answer is quite simple, and it's only one word. - Rerun, for a veteran show, you can afford to get low rating but that is not the same for a new show..

Re-run is probably second best (if not actually the best) way to earn money for a show, because when you rerun, you still need to pay for the show, either in a contractual rerun or residual, but since you already have produced the show, you, as the production company, pay nothing (except for a certain % of the actor retained residual) If I remember correctly, Friends earns like 20 times more money in reruns than when it was broadcasted originally in NBC, for example, Netflix signed a 120 millions, 2 years deal on all 10 season of Friends rerun during 2018-2020, I don't think the show have earn $120 millions on its entirely first run for WB?

This is not the same at all with sport program, they have another issue related and their payment are calculated separately than TV shows. For starter, there are no production cost for a sporting program, it's the same reason why reality show is a hit now, because there are next to nothing production cost.
The interesting thing about your Friends example is that NBC sees virtually nothing of that syndication money because they do not own the series, that I believe Warner media and it's predecessor Warner Brothers got that loot. Traditionally speaking sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld are able to make big scores in syndication, that hour long dramas are not nearly as successful in pulling in that kind of revenue. While there are scores of examples of shows that basically shoot most of their creative wad in the first season, then run out of creative gas and cruise along, that is not always the case. There are a lot of examples of shows that find their true creative voice in season 2 or 3, and that creative growth spurs word of mouth, which spurs increased ratings relative to how other shows are performing in an industry that is losing quite a bit of its market share of the audience. That is where streaming services really pay off for shows, allowing people to catch up on the first season or so they may have missed. A lot of people (including me) missed the first season of Breaking Bad but I was able to catch up with the series and creator Vince Gilligan credited Netflix as a key element in the growth and popularity of the series because of that dynamic. You don't get to be a veteran show if you whack all of your shows after one season! Also keep this in mind, if you check out Scribbler's chart, Ava, that the Scribbler was kind enough to post on this thread it shows Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the all important 18 to 49 demos as well as total viewers, so tell me how it would look if the powers that be at the CW gave Supergirl a renewal order and cancelled Batwoman, how would the optics of that look like? You would have LGBTQ groups in an uproar decrying the fact that you renewed straight beautiful White straight heterosexual superheroine's show while you jettisoned a higher rated show with a lesbian character as the lead. There would be people protesting outside those CW offices tomorrow, they would be outside their with pitchforks and broomsticks ready for battle demanding a reversal of that decision and the firing of the CW head honcho. I think that we can all agree that would not be a good look for any company looking to be seen as inclusive and caring for the plight of minorities.
lol, as I said, I am standing on the TV production point of view, not the network (Network don't produce TV show since 1970s). Friends was created and produced by WB Studio, and WB got all the loot. NBC is just a network, they got some of it, especially with prime time advert sale, but all the residual things were with WB. But yeah, WB charges $500,000 per episode just on license fee alone for rerun, and considering Friends have 238 episode, so a contract would be about 120 millions per year deal, that is just one year and one network. As I said, I don't think WB have ever seen this much money on Friends when they make their original network

I am not opposing or hating or anything with Batwoman. I am just saying the show itself have some problem and that is mostly the reason with the low rating and star leaving, whether or not Batwoman will be cancelled is another issue, I am merely saying if the road continue this way, casting another lead would not help, heck, even the action of recasting hurt the show reputation. There are a lot of stuff Berlanti have to work on, if they want to see this beyond season 3.
I don't think any hour long drama on any American network will ever get Friends syndication money, so that aspect of your point does not apply here. Sitcoms are able to command huge paydays in syndication due to the fact that they are for the most part evergreen, that you don't have to have seen the previous episode to enjoy the next one, whereas for hour long series, most of them, like all CW series, are heavily serialized and storylines flow from one episode to the next, which make them far less valuable properties, that they only garner a mere tiny fraction of the revenue of that of sitcoms. Perhaps the recast will be an improvement on Ruby and the change will reinvigorate the show. Sometimes you have to take one step back before you take two steps forward. Batwoman, the second or third highest rated CW show in the 18 to 49 demo has already been renewed. As I have said previously, some shows don't find their true voice or identity until season 2 or 3, and who's to say that can't happen here. I can rattle of a long list of shows that found their footing after season one. You and I and countless others can lament the flaws of these CW series until the cows come home and to be sure, they definitely have made some mistakes creatively, that happens with every show. One of the areas though where Berlanti and friends have shown considerable success and aptitude for is in the casting of these lead roles. Stephen Amell was excellent on Arrow, Grant Gustin continues to hit it out of the park on the Flash, and while there is always somebody on here bitching about Supergirl, I do think one thing we can all agree on is that Melissa Benoist was a simply stellar and inspired choice as Supergirl, not to mention the fine casting of some of these supporting roles of these series. Jon Cryer as also been awesome as Lex Luthor. Berlanti and company must be in the possession of some secret superpower that allows them to select abnormally well when it comes to the casting of it's leads. Casting in my view is what this crew does best and they will certainly have a high profile role to fill with everybody watching. Their track record with casting these roles is actually quite phenomenal in my view.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago

Boy, I went to bed thinking after reading Scribbler's post where it clearly showed Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the most important and relevant 18 to 49 demographic, I thought it was a Scribbler mic drop end of story. Here in the U.S, 0.5 is not the relevant number for a fledgling network such as the CW. CW is not a seven network, nine network, or network 10 in your neck of the woods, it almost exclusively targets the young demos. It's kind of like the sort of wrestling war happening on Wednesday nights her in the states. TNT has AEW wrestling going against NXT on the USA network. NXT is getting a better rating and averaging better ratings some weeks, that it goes back and forth, but AEW is clearly winning in the important young 18 to 34 demos, and most experts because of that demo win declare AEW the clear winner in the war. Make no mistake about it, AEW getting a three year extension is thanks to the demographic victories, not due to the performance among total viewer or ratings average.
To be honest, I never watched channel seven (although I work as one of their show producer, producing one of their segment in the Sunrise show, and I used to work for channel nine, which I preferred, but well, seven paid more and I needed the money...anyway..)

I speak on my own experience as a AP in one of the major network in Australia, maskripper said did not actually make sense when he compare a first year show to a 4th or 5th years, because when you deal with actor, you don't just think of "now", or what is going on this season, if you do that, you probably have cancelled your own show, every story you write is for a series of actors (not just one) to keep on playing their role, so when you write a show, you think of it 2 or 3 or may even be 5 years down the road.

So if I am producing a show, especially a new show, I look at the number and look at how feasible that would be, not just this year, but subsequently as well. That is why I said the show first year mediocre rating (we should at least agree the rating for batwoman is mediocre, shall we?) And that would affect the program get funding, that is because it WILL BE worse in the second year, and the third, if there are the third year.

Even tho today is 2020, not 2000, the rating is still relevant, even tho not too many people watch TV anymore. The problem is, the alternative is actually worst. I can sell a show to Netflix and get around 1 or 2 dollars per play, or if they buy it outright, I may get around 600,000 to 1 millions rights + residual, however, those are peanuts when you compare to network syndication and international broadcast right. Because say for example, if Channel 7 here in Oz want to buy the right to SG, they will need to negotiate right + residual, if I remember correctly, Fox bought the right of SG for $400,000 + residual with an unknown percentage. And that's channel specific, sometime they pay more, sometime less, but that is per channel. But at the end of the day, channel buys right does not looks at streaming platform, they still looks at stuff like accolade and rating. I mean, it's generally no one internationally will buy a show that done poorly in the US in terms of rating.

As for why you cannot compare a freshmen show and a veteran show? The answer is quite simple, and it's only one word. - Rerun, for a veteran show, you can afford to get low rating but that is not the same for a new show..

Re-run is probably second best (if not actually the best) way to earn money for a show, because when you rerun, you still need to pay for the show, either in a contractual rerun or residual, but since you already have produced the show, you, as the production company, pay nothing (except for a certain % of the actor retained residual) If I remember correctly, Friends earns like 20 times more money in reruns than when it was broadcasted originally in NBC, for example, Netflix signed a 120 millions, 2 years deal on all 10 season of Friends rerun during 2018-2020, I don't think the show have earn $120 millions on its entirely first run for WB?

This is not the same at all with sport program, they have another issue related and their payment are calculated separately than TV shows. For starter, there are no production cost for a sporting program, it's the same reason why reality show is a hit now, because there are next to nothing production cost.
The interesting thing about your Friends example is that NBC sees virtually nothing of that syndication money because they do not own the series, that I believe Warner media and it's predecessor Warner Brothers got that loot. Traditionally speaking sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld are able to make big scores in syndication, that hour long dramas are not nearly as successful in pulling in that kind of revenue. While there are scores of examples of shows that basically shoot most of their creative wad in the first season, then run out of creative gas and cruise along, that is not always the case. There are a lot of examples of shows that find their true creative voice in season 2 or 3, and that creative growth spurs word of mouth, which spurs increased ratings relative to how other shows are performing in an industry that is losing quite a bit of its market share of the audience. That is where streaming services really pay off for shows, allowing people to catch up on the first season or so they may have missed. A lot of people (including me) missed the first season of Breaking Bad but I was able to catch up with the series and creator Vince Gilligan credited Netflix as a key element in the growth and popularity of the series because of that dynamic. You don't get to be a veteran show if you whack all of your shows after one season! Also keep this in mind, if you check out Scribbler's chart, Ava, that the Scribbler was kind enough to post on this thread it shows Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the all important 18 to 49 demos as well as total viewers, so tell me how it would look if the powers that be at the CW gave Supergirl a renewal order and cancelled Batwoman, how would the optics of that look like? You would have LGBTQ groups in an uproar decrying the fact that you renewed straight beautiful White straight heterosexual superheroine's show while you jettisoned a higher rated show with a lesbian character as the lead. There would be people protesting outside those CW offices tomorrow, they would be outside their with pitchforks and broomsticks ready for battle demanding a reversal of that decision and the firing of the CW head honcho. I think that we can all agree that would not be a good look for any company looking to be seen as inclusive and caring for the plight of minorities.
lol, as I said, I am standing on the TV production point of view, not the network (Network don't produce TV show since 1970s). Friends was created and produced by WB Studio, and WB got all the loot. NBC is just a network, they got some of it, especially with prime time advert sale, but all the residual things were with WB. But yeah, WB charges $500,000 per episode just on license fee alone for rerun, and considering Friends have 238 episode, so a contract would be about 120 millions per year deal, that is just one year and one network. As I said, I don't think WB have ever seen this much money on Friends when they make their original network

I am not opposing or hating or anything with Batwoman. I am just saying the show itself have some problem and that is mostly the reason with the low rating and star leaving, whether or not Batwoman will be cancelled is another issue, I am merely saying if the road continue this way, casting another lead would not help, heck, even the action of recasting hurt the show reputation. There are a lot of stuff Berlanti have to work on, if they want to see this beyond season 3.
I don't think any hour long drama on any American network will ever get Friends syndication money, so that aspect of your point does not apply here. Sitcoms are able to command huge paydays in syndication due to the fact that they are for the most part evergreen, that you don't have to have seen the previous episode to enjoy the next one, whereas for hour long series, most of them, like all CW series, are heavily serialized and storylines flow from one episode to the next, which make them far less valuable properties, that they only garner a mere tiny fraction of the revenue of that of sitcoms. Perhaps the recast will be an improvement on Ruby and the change will reinvigorate the show. Sometimes you have to take one step back before you take two steps forward. Batwoman, the second or third highest rated CW show in the 18 to 49 demo has already been renewed. As I have said previously, some shows don't find their true voice or identity until season 2 or 3, and who's to say that can't happen here. I can rattle of a long list of shows that found their footing after season one. You and I and countless others can lament the flaws of these CW series until the cows come home and to be sure, they definitely have made some mistakes creatively, that happens with every show. One of the areas though where Berlanti and friends have shown considerable success and aptitude for is in the casting of these lead roles. Stephen Amell was excellent on Arrow, Grant Gustin continues to hit it out of the park on the Flash, and while there is always somebody on here bitching about Supergirl, I do think one thing we can all agree on is that Melissa Benoist was a simply stellar and inspired choice as Supergirl, not to mention the fine casting of some of these supporting roles of these series. Jon Cryer as also been awesome as Lex Luthor. Berlanti and company must be in the possession of some secret superpower that allows them to select abnormally well when it comes to the casting of it's leads. Casting in my view is what this crew does best and they will certainly have a high profile role to fill with everybody watching. Their track record with casting these roles is actually quite phenomenal in my view.
Oh well, how many Friends can there be out there? I think other than MASH, Cheers, Seinfeld and maybe Frasier, I don't think any show can have Friends's level of residual money. I was simply pointing out that re-runs are a major source of income, I mean, even tho other show aren't exactly generate residual like Friends, but hour long cable channel program still do enjoy good re-run money. A few shows comes to my mind (HBO's Brand of Brothers/The Pacific, Cinemax - Strike Back, USA - Psych and so on) Even older show still doing strong, show like ER or even Murder She Wrote are still generating decent amount of re-run money. Well consider Murder, She Wrote is coming to 40 years old.

About the recast, it's in the future, so it could be anyone game. Since I can't see into the future, so I cannot say for sure if the recast are going to work for the show, all I can say is good run and good luck. On the other hand, I can probably answer one of your question tho. It's not that Berlanti have some kind of magic or secret weapon. A-List TV star like to do recurring role on Cable, that's because they offer big bucks for short amount of time. (Shorter, not exactly short if you compare it to shooting a movie) I can name a few A Lister in both TV and Movie have been starring or recurring in Cable TV shows.

Nicole Kidman, Holly hunter and Elizabeth Moss (Top Of The Lake),
Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Rachel McAdams, Colin Ferrel, Mahershala Ali (True Detective)
David Schwimmer (Band of Brothers)
Toni Collette (Rake)
Kevin Bacon (City on a Hill, The Following)
William Shatner (Psych, Private Eye and about a dozen Canadian TV program)

A-Lister tend to take these chance to unwind, they aren't as heavy load as TV series, but you get similar pay to a movie. But more importantly, it does not comes with contractual limits and obligation..
User avatar
Maskripper
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: 7 years ago
Contact:

So, there are two big, fat rumors I read about in the last days/hours:

- They are seemingly going for an actress that is already on a CW show and looks a bit like Ruby
https://twitter.com/Vullein/status/1263463260080279552

*EDIT*
And it appears that Peyton List is meant by that:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0514228/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Well, I have seen her in Flash and in Gotham. I think she is a little too old (as Ruby is)....as the lead actress shouldn't be over 30-32 in my opinion, when you plan to run the show with her for some years. But ok, I have seen much worse suggestions. She has a lot of TV experience with many shows, but so far no role that lasted longer as 22 episodes.
However....just a rumor.
-

- Another rumor from an insider is that they are planning to shoot season 2 and 3 more or less in close succession.
Season 2 would run until July (with a full season) and season 3 would then start (as usually) in October
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAdzJmwg3jl/

Well, both sources that are semmingly solid.....BUT...it's nothing official.
IF that's true...... I would be excited to the MAX, because it would not only mean that a season 3 is already greenlightet ...and season 2 would get a full set of episodes (around 20), which isn't 100% sure at the moment....even Mark Pedowitz from CW said they would aim for that!
Also the break between season 2 and 3 would be verrrry short which would also be fantastic.
But unless it's confirmed, I won't get too excited about it as that would jinx it.
Last edited by Maskripper 3 years ago, edited 2 times in total.
Vist my blog and its Youtube channel:
http://www.maskripper.org
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaskripperOrg

Masked women in action! Superheroines, burglars, villainesses are waiting for you...
User avatar
RedMountain
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 582
Joined: 18 years ago

July of next year thought right? I'm pretty sure they've confirmed none of the shows will be back until 2021.
User avatar
Maskripper
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: 7 years ago
Contact:

RedMountain wrote:
3 years ago
July of next year thought right? I'm pretty sure they've confirmed none of the shows will be back until 2021.
Yeah, of course. They are not filming right now and the next weeks.
Season 2 is starting in Januray.
Vist my blog and its Youtube channel:
http://www.maskripper.org
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaskripperOrg

Masked women in action! Superheroines, burglars, villainesses are waiting for you...
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago


To be honest, I never watched channel seven (although I work as one of their show producer, producing one of their segment in the Sunrise show, and I used to work for channel nine, which I preferred, but well, seven paid more and I needed the money...anyway..)

I speak on my own experience as a AP in one of the major network in Australia, maskripper said did not actually make sense when he compare a first year show to a 4th or 5th years, because when you deal with actor, you don't just think of "now", or what is going on this season, if you do that, you probably have cancelled your own show, every story you write is for a series of actors (not just one) to keep on playing their role, so when you write a show, you think of it 2 or 3 or may even be 5 years down the road.

So if I am producing a show, especially a new show, I look at the number and look at how feasible that would be, not just this year, but subsequently as well. That is why I said the show first year mediocre rating (we should at least agree the rating for batwoman is mediocre, shall we?) And that would affect the program get funding, that is because it WILL BE worse in the second year, and the third, if there are the third year.

Even tho today is 2020, not 2000, the rating is still relevant, even tho not too many people watch TV anymore. The problem is, the alternative is actually worst. I can sell a show to Netflix and get around 1 or 2 dollars per play, or if they buy it outright, I may get around 600,000 to 1 millions rights + residual, however, those are peanuts when you compare to network syndication and international broadcast right. Because say for example, if Channel 7 here in Oz want to buy the right to SG, they will need to negotiate right + residual, if I remember correctly, Fox bought the right of SG for $400,000 + residual with an unknown percentage. And that's channel specific, sometime they pay more, sometime less, but that is per channel. But at the end of the day, channel buys right does not looks at streaming platform, they still looks at stuff like accolade and rating. I mean, it's generally no one internationally will buy a show that done poorly in the US in terms of rating.

As for why you cannot compare a freshmen show and a veteran show? The answer is quite simple, and it's only one word. - Rerun, for a veteran show, you can afford to get low rating but that is not the same for a new show..

Re-run is probably second best (if not actually the best) way to earn money for a show, because when you rerun, you still need to pay for the show, either in a contractual rerun or residual, but since you already have produced the show, you, as the production company, pay nothing (except for a certain % of the actor retained residual) If I remember correctly, Friends earns like 20 times more money in reruns than when it was broadcasted originally in NBC, for example, Netflix signed a 120 millions, 2 years deal on all 10 season of Friends rerun during 2018-2020, I don't think the show have earn $120 millions on its entirely first run for WB?

This is not the same at all with sport program, they have another issue related and their payment are calculated separately than TV shows. For starter, there are no production cost for a sporting program, it's the same reason why reality show is a hit now, because there are next to nothing production cost.
The interesting thing about your Friends example is that NBC sees virtually nothing of that syndication money because they do not own the series, that I believe Warner media and it's predecessor Warner Brothers got that loot. Traditionally speaking sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld are able to make big scores in syndication, that hour long dramas are not nearly as successful in pulling in that kind of revenue. While there are scores of examples of shows that basically shoot most of their creative wad in the first season, then run out of creative gas and cruise along, that is not always the case. There are a lot of examples of shows that find their true creative voice in season 2 or 3, and that creative growth spurs word of mouth, which spurs increased ratings relative to how other shows are performing in an industry that is losing quite a bit of its market share of the audience. That is where streaming services really pay off for shows, allowing people to catch up on the first season or so they may have missed. A lot of people (including me) missed the first season of Breaking Bad but I was able to catch up with the series and creator Vince Gilligan credited Netflix as a key element in the growth and popularity of the series because of that dynamic. You don't get to be a veteran show if you whack all of your shows after one season! Also keep this in mind, if you check out Scribbler's chart, Ava, that the Scribbler was kind enough to post on this thread it shows Batwoman outperforming Supergirl in the all important 18 to 49 demos as well as total viewers, so tell me how it would look if the powers that be at the CW gave Supergirl a renewal order and cancelled Batwoman, how would the optics of that look like? You would have LGBTQ groups in an uproar decrying the fact that you renewed straight beautiful White straight heterosexual superheroine's show while you jettisoned a higher rated show with a lesbian character as the lead. There would be people protesting outside those CW offices tomorrow, they would be outside their with pitchforks and broomsticks ready for battle demanding a reversal of that decision and the firing of the CW head honcho. I think that we can all agree that would not be a good look for any company looking to be seen as inclusive and caring for the plight of minorities.
lol, as I said, I am standing on the TV production point of view, not the network (Network don't produce TV show since 1970s). Friends was created and produced by WB Studio, and WB got all the loot. NBC is just a network, they got some of it, especially with prime time advert sale, but all the residual things were with WB. But yeah, WB charges $500,000 per episode just on license fee alone for rerun, and considering Friends have 238 episode, so a contract would be about 120 millions per year deal, that is just one year and one network. As I said, I don't think WB have ever seen this much money on Friends when they make their original network

I am not opposing or hating or anything with Batwoman. I am just saying the show itself have some problem and that is mostly the reason with the low rating and star leaving, whether or not Batwoman will be cancelled is another issue, I am merely saying if the road continue this way, casting another lead would not help, heck, even the action of recasting hurt the show reputation. There are a lot of stuff Berlanti have to work on, if they want to see this beyond season 3.
I don't think any hour long drama on any American network will ever get Friends syndication money, so that aspect of your point does not apply here. Sitcoms are able to command huge paydays in syndication due to the fact that they are for the most part evergreen, that you don't have to have seen the previous episode to enjoy the next one, whereas for hour long series, most of them, like all CW series, are heavily serialized and storylines flow from one episode to the next, which make them far less valuable properties, that they only garner a mere tiny fraction of the revenue of that of sitcoms. Perhaps the recast will be an improvement on Ruby and the change will reinvigorate the show. Sometimes you have to take one step back before you take two steps forward. Batwoman, the second or third highest rated CW show in the 18 to 49 demo has already been renewed. As I have said previously, some shows don't find their true voice or identity until season 2 or 3, and who's to say that can't happen here. I can rattle of a long list of shows that found their footing after season one. You and I and countless others can lament the flaws of these CW series until the cows come home and to be sure, they definitely have made some mistakes creatively, that happens with every show. One of the areas though where Berlanti and friends have shown considerable success and aptitude for is in the casting of these lead roles. Stephen Amell was excellent on Arrow, Grant Gustin continues to hit it out of the park on the Flash, and while there is always somebody on here bitching about Supergirl, I do think one thing we can all agree on is that Melissa Benoist was a simply stellar and inspired choice as Supergirl, not to mention the fine casting of some of these supporting roles of these series. Jon Cryer as also been awesome as Lex Luthor. Berlanti and company must be in the possession of some secret superpower that allows them to select abnormally well when it comes to the casting of it's leads. Casting in my view is what this crew does best and they will certainly have a high profile role to fill with everybody watching. Their track record with casting these roles is actually quite phenomenal in my view.
Oh well, how many Friends can there be out there? I think other than MASH, Cheers, Seinfeld and maybe Frasier, I don't think any show can have Friends's level of residual money. I was simply pointing out that re-runs are a major source of income, I mean, even tho other show aren't exactly generate residual like Friends, but hour long cable channel program still do enjoy good re-run money. A few shows comes to my mind (HBO's Brand of Brothers/The Pacific, Cinemax - Strike Back, USA - Psych and so on) Even older show still doing strong, show like ER or even Murder She Wrote are still generating decent amount of re-run money. Well consider Murder, She Wrote is coming to 40 years old.

About the recast, it's in the future, so it could be anyone game. Since I can't see into the future, so I cannot say for sure if the recast are going to work for the show, all I can say is good run and good luck. On the other hand, I can probably answer one of your question tho. It's not that Berlanti have some kind of magic or secret weapon. A-List TV star like to do recurring role on Cable, that's because they offer big bucks for short amount of time. (Shorter, not exactly short if you compare it to shooting a movie) I can name a few A Lister in both TV and Movie have been starring or recurring in Cable TV shows.

Nicole Kidman, Holly hunter and Elizabeth Moss (Top Of The Lake),
Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Rachel McAdams, Colin Ferrel, Mahershala Ali (True Detective)
David Schwimmer (Band of Brothers)
Toni Collette (Rake)
Kevin Bacon (City on a Hill, The Following)
William Shatner (Psych, Private Eye and about a dozen Canadian TV program)

A-Lister tend to take these chance to unwind, they aren't as heavy load as TV series, but you get similar pay to a movie. But more importantly, it does not comes with contractual limits and obligation..
OK, let's look at a fellow CW show superhero show that's already gone into the afterlife of first run television. Let's look at Arrow, the show that essentially spawned this generation of superhero shows. I just went to try to find Arrow reruns on my cable guide and you want to know when it airs? 2 AM in the friggin morning over here on TNT. 2AM! How much of a syndication market can there be for these series if they air at friggin 2 AM? There is no golden parachute for these CW genre shows and Arrow proves my point. Stephen Amell, Grant Gustin, and Melissa Benoist were in point of fact not movie stars before getting their big breaks on these CW shows. I imagine that it is quite easier to cast these shows when you have big budgets and can afford established stars, but Amell, Gustin, and Benoist were far from established commodities before getting their CW gigs. Gustin did some guest starring stuff here and there, and Benoist had a forgettable season on Glee before they let her go, but she was certainly not a famous star and none of them matched the status of the names you listed above, these three were not A-list stars and that is essentially my point, they were basically nobodies, which make their ridiculous casting success of these shows nothing short of remarkable. These CW shows don't have the money for a Bacon or McConaughey, their job is to try to find the NEXT big undiscovered star, not somebody who is already established. Finding established stars is easy, trying to find actors for these roles that nobody has ever heard of has to be extremely hard and challenging work, but Berlanti and friends have done an amazing job at shaking the trees in the forest and coming out with really excellent choices for these roles. The CW budgets do not allow for them to afford A-list talent and it's really weird you implied that Amell, Gustin, and Benoist as A-list talent before they got their roles because that is simply not the case.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3743
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Im Sancho: There was a recent attempt at a campy superhero show on NBC, and it even had close ties to the Batman mythos.
It was called Powerless. One of the final episodes even guest starred Adam West, so they really leaned into it. We were hoping for good things, but the writing and cast was just not strong and memorable enough.

Mr. X: There is in, fact, a vast conspiracy against the gays. It's called every other culture and nation in the world besides the West. The only situation within which LGBTs can even hope to muster a significant counter-insurgency is within Western civilization, and it took them a long time to even do that. So they are making the most of it under the Current Year conditions - case in point, Batwoman.

Bushwacker: I really don't think the batting average for accurate casting on the CW shows is that much better than anywhere else on television. They might do a good job with the leads, but any TV show has to do that in order to make an impact. A lot of the side casting on the CW shows is as flippant and disposable as on any other TV show.

Here's another piece about two women who have expressed interest in the Batwoman role. The older actress from Brooklyn-Nine-Nine would actually work much better as Renee Montoya. But I could see the lesbian wrestling star doing a good job as Kate Kane if, in fact, she can actually act. She is way more beautiful than Ruby Rose and would look great in that costume.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/05/ ... oman-role/
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

shevek wrote:
3 years ago
Im Sancho: There was a recent attempt at a campy superhero show on NBC, and it even had close ties to the Batman mythos.
It was called Powerless. One of the final episodes even guest starred Adam West, so they really leaned into it. We were hoping for good things, but the writing and cast was just not strong and memorable enough.

Mr. X: There is in, fact, a vast conspiracy against the gays. It's called every other culture and nation in the world besides the West. The only situation within which LGBTs can even hope to muster a significant counter-insurgency is within Western civilization, and it took them a long time to even do that. So they are making the most of it under the Current Year conditions - case in point, Batwoman.

Bushwacker: I really don't think the batting average for accurate casting on the CW shows is that much better than anywhere else on television. They might do a good job with the leads, but any TV show has to do that in order to make an impact. A lot of the side casting on the CW shows is as flippant and disposable as on any other TV show.

Here's another piece about two women who have expressed interest in the Batwoman role. The older actress from Brooklyn-Nine-Nine would actually work much better as Renee Montoya. But I could see the lesbian wrestling star doing a good job as Kate Kane if, in fact, she can actually act. She is way more beautiful than Ruby Rose and would look great in that costume.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/05/ ... oman-role/
I really like the supporting casts, especially on Arrow and Flash. On network television these days you see a lot of people, and they are unseasoned and wooden. (think Mon-El on Supergirl) On the Flash you have the beautiful and dazzling Iris, Sisco is excellent, and also Caitlin is pretty good as well(Ralph, not so much). Dr. D has heard me rant to him on occasion that there is a lot of mediocre actors on broadcast television now compared to 30 to 40 years ago, that a lot of these shows spend their wad on getting these famous established actors and then surround them with these weak and uninspired green newcomers who can't act. Somehow, the CW is able to find young people who can act and fit seamlessly into their roles, where broadcast networks are a lot more wildly inconsistent and are hit and miss with the casting of such roles. Look at some of these shows that got cancelled like Emergence, the Crossing, the Returned, all with really good and interesting premises, but that with a few exceptions, these casts could not act their way out of a paper bag, that there performances are boring and wooden.
User avatar
Maskripper
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: 7 years ago
Contact:

shevek wrote:
3 years ago

......
Here's another piece about two women who have expressed interest in the Batwoman role. The older actress from Brooklyn-Nine-Nine would actually work much better as Renee Montoya. But I could see the lesbian wrestling star doing a good job as Kate Kane if, in fact, she can actually act. She is way more beautiful than Ruby Rose and would look great in that costume.

https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/05/ ... oman-role/
Yeah, heard these two names floating around too.
Stephanie Beatriz is way too old with 39. It could perhaps work in a movie, but not in a TV show that should last some more seasons.
You have to think some years ahead.
Stephen Amell was 38 when he quit Arrow after 8 seasons. He was getting "old" and lost interest as well.
You should play such an action role when you are really fit for it. Yeah, there are exceptions of course, but I think most folks are in their best shape up to 35.
I think even Ruby was too old when they casted her with her 34 years now.
Kate Kane is 25 in the show. I think the actress should be around that age. Let's say 22-30.

AND they need a caucasion/white actress to fit into the Kane family. Alice, Jacob and his former wife....all white. It has to fit. Another reason against Beatriz.
But yeah, as shevek said, I could picture her as Renee Montoya as well.
-
And about Daria Berenato:
She certainly looks good, is young, and surely fit as someone can be.
But with nearly no acting experience...well, unless you count Wrestling into it....it would be problematic.
And she too might have issues with working 14 or more hours on a TV set for most of the year.
I haven't seen her in anything so far, so I don't know if she has any acting talent.
Many always threw tons of hate on Ruby and said that she can't act at all............would be interesting to see if the same folks would say the same thing about someone that is really sexy like Daria ;)
-
Another name that I hear very often is:
Wallis Day
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5363417/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_7
She is 25, looks good has a lot of TV experience. Wouldn't be the worst choice.
Vist my blog and its Youtube channel:
http://www.maskripper.org
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaskripperOrg

Masked women in action! Superheroines, burglars, villainesses are waiting for you...
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

Maskripper wrote:
3 years ago
Another name that I hear very often is:
Wallis Day
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5363417/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_7
She is 25, looks good has a lot of TV experience. Wouldn't be the worst choice.
And she's interested, it seems: https://twitter.com/danwickline/status/ ... 2836347904 .



R5
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago


OK, let's look at a fellow CW show superhero show that's already gone into the afterlife of first run television. Let's look at Arrow, the show that essentially spawned this generation of superhero shows. I just went to try to find Arrow reruns on my cable guide and you want to know when it airs? 2 AM in the friggin morning over here on TNT. 2AM! How much of a syndication market can there be for these series if they air at friggin 2 AM? There is no golden parachute for these CW genre shows and Arrow proves my point. Stephen Amell, Grant Gustin, and Melissa Benoist were in point of fact not movie stars before getting their big breaks on these CW shows. I imagine that it is quite easier to cast these shows when you have big budgets and can afford established stars, but Amell, Gustin, and Benoist were far from established commodities before getting their CW gigs. Gustin did some guest starring stuff here and there, and Benoist had a forgettable season on Glee before they let her go, but she was certainly not a famous star and none of them matched the status of the names you listed above, these three were not A-list stars and that is essentially my point, they were basically nobodies, which make their ridiculous casting success of these shows nothing short of remarkable. These CW shows don't have the money for a Bacon or McConaughey, their job is to try to find the NEXT big undiscovered star, not somebody who is already established. Finding established stars is easy, trying to find actors for these roles that nobody has ever heard of has to be extremely hard and challenging work, but Berlanti and friends have done an amazing job at shaking the trees in the forest and coming out with really excellent choices for these roles. The CW budgets do not allow for them to afford A-list talent and it's really weird you implied that Amell, Gustin, and Benoist as A-list talent before they got their roles because that is simply not the case.
Re-Run basically mean EVERYTHING other than Simu-Cast and Syndication. Because both of which would be showing the same episode/series at the original air date. You don't need to pay to get another season make when you sell your show to other country, or put it on DVD or anything else that happened when you are on the "current" schedule. And the fact that Arrow already have network/cable re-run even tho the show has not been done for long (4 months? Give or Take) means the show is selling on the other market. You do know Arrow was widely sold overseas, right? Even in Australia, it was shown in two separate station (nine and Foxtel). IIRC, Arrow was show in Europe, UK and Asia as well.

And I think you try to put word into my mouth? Cable show like to have big A-lister, I have already show you a list of show I know that TV/Movie A-Lister star or recurring in, I don't see what is your point? And I also do not see how you can go from there to accusing me of calling, or in your word, "implying" Amell, Benoist et el are A-Lister? When did I say that? I said A-Lister (like Nicole Kidman, Holly Hunter, Mattew McConaughey) like to recurring in Cable show, that is because it was quick and easy money, did I say all Cable show hire are A Lister?

If you have any experience hiring actor for acting jobs (I mean a proper TV/Movie job, not online production like what I do with superhero content on the side). You will know you pay your actors for 3 things.

1.)Base Salary - How much money he/she gets outright
2.)Residual - How much money he/she will get after each broadcast (either from TV, movie theatre or Festival)
3.)Rights - If he/she also producing or have other production related job, they will also own a part of the movie right.

Now why I said A-Lister (again, like Nicole Kidman, Holly Hunter, Matthew McConaughey, not Amell or Benoist) like cable shows, this is because Cable show don't have heavy residual, and that's because Residual for syndication and movie screening are set rate by actor guild. And most cable show won't goes to either, which mean they can have a bigger base pay, which mean you get more money upfront.

Say for example, if Nicole Kidman have an recurring role on Brooklyn Nine-Nine (on NBC) and Big Little Lies (HBO) Brooklyn Nine-Nine will have to pay her 2% of the show earning on each residual, on the other hand, if Big Little Lies were never shown on Public Access Television, they will have to pay her 0%, so most of the time, Cable Company would ended up offering more Base Pay to actors, because they have less residual to worry about. However, that wont work with all A-Lister as some (like Denzel Washington and Mel Gibson) would require a fixed amount of money to work.

And finally, you are wrong about hiring actors, Channel like CW does not do the hiring because they don't produce their content. They buy the right of someone else content. Hiring who on what show is the sole discretion of the production company that make that show. So whatever money CW have is not going to change anything on the star of the show, that depends on the production budget, and that come from the production company, unless that is a joint venture (which most channel would not do these day) As long as CW have the money to pay for license, they can buy whatever they want.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
And finally, you are wrong about hiring actors, Channel like CW does not do the hiring because they don't produce their content. They buy the right of someone else content. Hiring who on what show is the sole discretion of the production company that make that show. So whatever money CW have is not going to change anything on the star of the show, that depends on the production budget, and that come from the production company, unless that is a joint venture (which most channel would not do these day) As long as CW have the money to pay for license, they can buy whatever they want.
I don't know how it works in Australia, but in USA, Networks absolutely have a say in who gets cast, hired, on TV shows that they are paying for, cause they're the money. That includes the CW Network. This includes not only shows that they have a hand in production, like the CW has with all their superhero shows via Warner Bros. Television, but also other producers shows. If you're a production company that can only get their show paid for by the CW willing to greenlight your show, damn right you're gonna listen if the other alternative is no show.

Casting Batwoman.png
Casting Batwoman.png (260.49 KiB) Viewed 4023 times
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
And finally, you are wrong about hiring actors, Channel like CW does not do the hiring because they don't produce their content. They buy the right of someone else content. Hiring who on what show is the sole discretion of the production company that make that show. So whatever money CW have is not going to change anything on the star of the show, that depends on the production budget, and that come from the production company, unless that is a joint venture (which most channel would not do these day) As long as CW have the money to pay for license, they can buy whatever they want.
I don't know how it works in Australia, but in USA, Networks absolutely have a say in who gets cast, hired, on TV shows that they are paying for, cause they're the money. That includes the CW Network. This includes not only shows that they have a hand in production, like the CW has with all their superhero shows via Warner Bros. Television, but also other producers shows. If you're a production company that can only get their show paid for by the CW willing to greenlight your show, damn right you're gonna listen if the other alternative is no show.


Casting Batwoman.png
My point about Arrow and the selling of reruns is that if a network purchases rerun rights to a show, then places it at 2 AM, then the network probably didn't pay a lot for the rights and thus the show is not making considerable revenue from that source. Over here at 2 AM there are not a lot of eyeballs watching television. In point of fact, I believe Arrow has been in reruns on TNT here for two to three years now. You give me a list of actors in your effort to give examples of A-listers who have done TV series (no CW examples on your list) in the midst of a conversation in regards to recasts and you say I am putting words in your mouth? Someone once said that in order to predict the future one must simply look to the past. Give me one A-list star that is currently leading a CW series. Crickets. If you understand that, then why bring up that irrelevant list of yours. I bring up how well the show's execs have done in casting unknowns in these lead roles and what a difficult task it must be, and then you say that it's not that hard and give me examples of ESTABLISHED actors who have gone back to television. How am I putting words in your mouth. Traditionally speaking, the budgets for these CW shows are not large enough to accommodate an A-list actor's salary demands. Your list is not applicable in this scenario. Another reason you will not likely see established A-list actors in CW series, but yet you see them on cable is that the prospect of an 8 to 12 episode season seems more palatable to these stars than a more daunting and grueling 18 to 22 episode slate where the schedule is more rigorous and the increased episode thing means they have less freedom and opportunities for outside projects. On the subject of network input on casting, please see the Scribbler's mic drop post.
User avatar
five_red
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 9 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
I don't know how it works in Australia, but in USA, Networks absolutely have a say in who gets cast, hired, on TV shows that they are paying for, cause they're the money. That includes the CW Network. This includes not only shows that they have a hand in production, like the CW has with all their superhero shows via Warner Bros. Television, but also other producers shows. If you're a production company that can only get their show paid for by the CW willing to greenlight your show, damn right you're gonna listen if the other alternative is no show.
How exactly does that work? For example, with Supergirl CBS paid for a pilot and a license to first-run the series, but as soon as CBS green-lit the series WB started selling the show to other networks around the world. Sky picked up the UK license and intended to broadcast the episodes just days after CBS, and Canadian, French and Australian networks had already bought license to screen the show in their territories. Did all these networks get a say in key decisions?

Currently Batwoman is being screened by numerous tv channels around the world. CW may have rights to broadcast each episode before anyone else, but it doesn't have ownership of the show. Check out the Blu-Ray or DVD covers for the Arrowverse shows -- you'll see the DC Comics logo, you'll see the Warner Bros. logo, but you won't see any mention of The CW, not even in the copyright small print at the foot of the rear cover. There are some shows (sitcoms being the obvious candidate) where the show is being produced on behalf of a specific network. But the more expensive shows, notably drama, rely on multiple networks to fund them. E4 in the UK has purchased Batwoman -- it hasn't purchased a syndication package of already-made Batwoman episodes, it has purchased a license to screen Batwoman episodes as they are being created by WB/Berlanti. It is therefore helping to fund the show's production. (Indeed given that E4 isn't owned by WB, it's funding is actually money coming into Warner Bros. rather than funding just being internally moved around between different parts of WB.) So... why does CW get a say in Batwoman's casting, but E4 doesn't..?

How exactly does it work..?

R5
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
...

How exactly does it work..?

R5
EDIT: Having come across new info on the CW Network, I have to take back that the CW Network is paying the production costs for the CW DC superhero shows. I knew it was a smaller network, but I didn't understand just how much different it operates that the much bigger networks like CBS, NBC and ABC. Still researching before I say anymore.
Last edited by theScribbler 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
And finally, you are wrong about hiring actors, Channel like CW does not do the hiring because they don't produce their content. They buy the right of someone else content. Hiring who on what show is the sole discretion of the production company that make that show. So whatever money CW have is not going to change anything on the star of the show, that depends on the production budget, and that come from the production company, unless that is a joint venture (which most channel would not do these day) As long as CW have the money to pay for license, they can buy whatever they want.
I don't know how it works in Australia, but in USA, Networks absolutely have a say in who gets cast, hired, on TV shows that they are paying for, cause they're the money. That includes the CW Network. This includes not only shows that they have a hand in production, like the CW has with all their superhero shows via Warner Bros. Television, but also other producers shows. If you're a production company that can only get their show paid for by the CW willing to greenlight your show, damn right you're gonna listen if the other alternative is no show.


Casting Batwoman.png
Depends on what kind of deal you get. Nowadays, network don't really have a say because there are abundant of alternative.

I should say Network does not have a "Direct" say on casting, but yes, as you said, Network can opt out if they don't like the cast (which translate to you either listen to what the network say or find another network)

Also, another way network can have a say on the actor issue is by directly owning the production company. Like NBC is owned by Comcast, and Comcast also own Universal Studio.

But in Cable Network, these hold are quite small, because well, they don't have a big share on the market and cable network usually just buy shows and leave the production to the production company, what you are saying would happened a lot more on Network TV.

I don't think CW have anything to do with the batwoman casting tho.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

five_red wrote:
3 years ago
theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
I don't know how it works in Australia, but in USA, Networks absolutely have a say in who gets cast, hired, on TV shows that they are paying for, cause they're the money. That includes the CW Network. This includes not only shows that they have a hand in production, like the CW has with all their superhero shows via Warner Bros. Television, but also other producers shows. If you're a production company that can only get their show paid for by the CW willing to greenlight your show, damn right you're gonna listen if the other alternative is no show.
How exactly does that work? For example, with Supergirl CBS paid for a pilot and a license to first-run the series, but as soon as CBS green-lit the series WB started selling the show to other networks around the world. Sky picked up the UK license and intended to broadcast the episodes just days after CBS, and Canadian, French and Australian networks had already bought license to screen the show in their territories. Did all these networks get a say in key decisions?

Currently Batwoman is being screened by numerous tv channels around the world. CW may have rights to broadcast each episode before anyone else, but it doesn't have ownership of the show. Check out the Blu-Ray or DVD covers for the Arrowverse shows -- you'll see the DC Comics logo, you'll see the Warner Bros. logo, but you won't see any mention of The CW, not even in the copyright small print at the foot of the rear cover. There are some shows (sitcoms being the obvious candidate) where the show is being produced on behalf of a specific network. But the more expensive shows, notably drama, rely on multiple networks to fund them. E4 in the UK has purchased Batwoman -- it hasn't purchased a syndication package of already-made Batwoman episodes, it has purchased a license to screen Batwoman episodes as they are being created by WB/Berlanti. It is therefore helping to fund the show's production. (Indeed given that E4 isn't owned by WB, it's funding is actually money coming into Warner Bros. rather than funding just being internally moved around between different parts of WB.) So... why does CW get a say in Batwoman's casting, but E4 doesn't..?

How exactly does it work..?

R5
What it work is like this in a nut shell.

Production company produce the show, where network (Free to Air, Cable, Shows Network (The one showing them in Planes, Hotel and etc) pick up the show via license practices.

Basically, there are 3 types of licenses, broadcast licenses, re-run licenses and release licenses. Network in the US and around the world pay one of the three or all three licenses to the production company in order for them to screen the show in their network.

If the production company want to release the show on their first run to a network, they will negotiate a "release license", say CW bought the first screen right (the release license) for Batwoman from Berlanti (The production company) either they agreed to a lump sum (a fixed amount of money say $2 millions) or a percentage of advertisement takes (residual) or a mix of both (which is most common in network TV) Or in some case, the network would shoulder the production cost (very rare, usually only happened in affiliated company) and the show will be debut on their channel.

If an overseas company want to screen Batwoman, then they will need to buy a "(International)Broadcast License" Global in Canada, Sky in the UK, Foxtel in Australia all brought the license to screen Supergirl in their channel. This is similar to a release license, but with a few different. First of all, residual is different. and also, the term can be different too, like music, you may need to negotiate another right for music used in the series because sometime the production company only buy domestic (in this case, US< Canada and North America) licenses for their music, and if you want the same track, you will need to get the individual music licenses on the series. A very famous example is Cold Case on CBS, because of the numerous song used in the series, almost every country doing rerun have used different music on the series.

The final one is Re-Run License. This is different then the release or the broadcast license, because it would be negotiated by episode and also on year (With broadcast and release license are negotiate season by season) You can buy the whole show and screen it for 2 years, or you can buy just a specific season and screen it for 2 years. The license cost are according to the popularity of the show, but you don't usually need to pay residual right.

As for who have the say on production matter. As I said before, Production company always have final say on the matter, however, that have to be balanced on network favour (Most Pubic Access Network like NBC, ABC and CBS have their own actor contracted to them, known as non-compete clause, that is the reason why you don't generally see one actors act on show in different channel, For example, Andy Samberg of Brooklyn Nine Nine, when Brooklyn Nine NIne is on Fox (He acted in two other TV show, New Girl and Party Over Here, both Fox). Cable company, however, don't generally have non-compete clause.

And to answer your question, CW don't. They can't tell what the production company do, the most they can do is to not renew their license, hence not show them on CW
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Someone said...

"I don't think CW have anything to do with the batwoman casting tho."

Once again, I present to you: the CW is involved in Batwoman casting!

Casting Batwoman.png
Casting Batwoman.png (260.49 KiB) Viewed 3935 times
Last edited by theScribbler 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: 10 years ago

If Ruby Rose is leaving or was forced out due to her complaint of long hours.

In today's global crisis with many forced out of work, why should we not find her in contempt for her complaint about having work and some extra hours in a nonessential profession?
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
If Ruby Rose is leaving or was forced out due to her complaint of long hours.

In today's global crisis with many forced out of work, why should we not find her in contempt for her complaint about having work and some extra hours in a nonessential profession?
Cause she seems like a nice person and not a MBJW.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
Maskripper
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1091
Joined: 7 years ago
Contact:

The post on my 3 top candidates for the role so far (names that I heard quite often in the last days):
https://maskripper.org/batwoman-casting ... ton-e-list

So far Wallis Day is my favorite, she fits most of the criterias :hmmm:
Vist my blog and its Youtube channel:
http://www.maskripper.org
https://www.youtube.com/c/MaskripperOrg

Masked women in action! Superheroines, burglars, villainesses are waiting for you...
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Someone said...

"I don't think CW have anything to do with the batwoman casting tho."

Once again, I present to you: the CW is involved in Batwoman casting!


Casting Batwoman.png
That didn't say anything actually, most people would think this is a CW show, because it was on CW, it also said "Warner Brother's" too, so does both involve in Casting? What if CW and Warner Bros not agree on the same casting, so are we seeing 2 batwomen?

There can only be one casting agent tho, you cannot share it with both organisation. Warner Bros may have the right to cast actress as it was the producer and distributor too, CW not so much. CW doesn't own the rights of Batwoman, and if you do not own the right, you do not own the right of the production, you do not own the right to Pre-Production, Post Production and the Production of the series...

Read this : https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/the-cw ... 203290982/

If CW do own Batwoman and have the right to cast actors ) they would not have to secure the right to stream it after the season finale from WB...
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: 10 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
If Ruby Rose is leaving or was forced out due to her complaint of long hours.

In today's global crisis with many forced out of work, why should we not find her in contempt for her complaint about having work and some extra hours in a nonessential profession?
Cause she seems like a nice person and not a MBJW.
What is a MBJW?
Don't know if she is nice or not.

But sorry I don't think she had it that tough if this was not injury related.

I think those who are waiting for line for food have it tough, or those working 12-16 hours in the hospital have it tough,
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Someone said...

"I don't think CW have anything to do with the batwoman casting tho."

Once again, I present to you: the CW is involved in Batwoman casting!


Casting Batwoman.png
That didn't say anything actually, most people would think this is a CW show, because it was on CW, it also said "Warner Brother's" too, so does both involve in Casting?

There can only be one casting agent tho, you cannot share it with both organisation. Warner Bros may have the right to cast actress as it was the producer and distributor too, CW not so much.
I'm beginning to think along those lines too: that the CW is mentioned in the casting call for branding reasons, so auditioners will know yes it's for the CW's Batwoman show. So seems Warner Bros. Television is doing the casting with likely back and forth with Berlanti's people including showrunner, I would assume.

I want to apologize for leading some along a wrong path with wrong info, as in my saying the CW Network is paying the production costs of it's DC shows, it isn't. Warner Bros. Television is. Been reading up and appears the CW Network is more different from the major Networks than I knew: it's reason for being, and how it benefits it's owners: Warner Bros. and CBS. There are reasons why the CW barely cares about it's low ratings, and Batwoman is going to have at least 88 episodes no matter what!
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Someone said...

"I don't think CW have anything to do with the batwoman casting tho."

Once again, I present to you: the CW is involved in Batwoman casting!


Casting Batwoman.png
That didn't say anything actually, most people would think this is a CW show, because it was on CW, it also said "Warner Brother's" too, so does both involve in Casting?

There can only be one casting agent tho, you cannot share it with both organisation. Warner Bros may have the right to cast actress as it was the producer and distributor too, CW not so much.
I'm beginning to think along those lines too: that the CW is mentioned in the casting call for branding reasons, so auditioners will know yes it's for the CW's Batwoman show. So seems Warner Bros. Television is doing the casting with likely back and forth with Berlanti's people including showrunner, I would assume.

I want to apologize for leading some along a wrong path with wrong info, as in my saying the CW Network is paying the production costs of it's DC shows, it isn't. Warner Bros. Television is. Been reading up and appears the CW Network is more different from the major Networks than I knew: it's reason for being, and how it benefits it's owners: Warner Bros. and CBS. There are reasons why the CW barely cares about it's low ratings, and Batwoman is going to have at least 88 episodes no matter what!
If I remember correctly WB is the gateway company for CW, it basically produce all CW shows (from Gossip Girl to Arrowverse), in fact, I think WB is one of the top 3 TV production company beside CBS Television and Sony Picture Television. Those 3 companies have too much power on what we see on TV I supposed...
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

The US changed the law to allow studios producing content to also own TV networks that distribute the content. With the CW partially owned by Warner Media, there is an overlap in ownership of those shows and where they are aired for the first run. Basically the CW network can afford to run even poorly rated shows because the money they are spending to buy the shows goes to another subsidiary of the parent company. Overall they lose less money than if they ran a show from another studio.

That's why certain shows are produced and who has a say in production and casting decisions.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I do think that while the television studio ultimately has the strongest voice and final say as to casting these lead roles, I do believe that the network does have some input and will make some suggestions in regards to these casting decisions. They are by no means the deciding or key factor in these decisions but I do believe they are consulted with, especially when it comes to these higher profile roles.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
If Ruby Rose is leaving or was forced out due to her complaint of long hours.

In today's global crisis with many forced out of work, why should we not find her in contempt for her complaint about having work and some extra hours in a nonessential profession?
Cause she seems like a nice person and not a MBJW.
What is a MBJW?
Don't know if she is nice or not.

But sorry I don't think she had it that tough if this was not injury related.

I think those who are waiting for line for food have it tough, or those working 12-16 hours in the hospital have it tough,
MBJW = Man-Baby Justice Warrior

And Ruby's totally nice. She's not mean-spirited like some people, posting in a forum where she judges someone in the dumbest way possible for the dumbest of reasons. She's not saying they complained of long hours when she has no idea what the real or full story is. Or trying to enlist others to 'find' this someone 'in contempt' for the lamest reason one could imagine.

She's not out there saying she doesn't think so-and-so had it tough, like she's in any position to know.

Yep, Ruby's totally nice, unlike who she would be if she were like the person I describe above. But she's not that, so thumbs up Ruby!
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

Have you met her? I doubt it, in which case you are making your judgement call on her based on your perceptions, just as others who don't like her for whatever reason are making theirs based on their perceptions.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

Visitor wrote:
3 years ago
The US changed the law to allow studios producing content to also own TV networks that distribute the content. With the CW partially owned by Warner Media, there is an overlap in ownership of those shows and where they are aired for the first run. Basically the CW network can afford to run even poorly rated shows because the money they are spending to buy the shows goes to another subsidiary of the parent company. Overall they lose less money than if they ran a show from another studio.

That's why certain shows are produced and who has a say in production and casting decisions.
After some research, CW was co-owned as a joint venture by WB and CBS with a 50/50 split (Hence the channel name CW = CBS + WB). While WB Television is wholly owned by WB.

So, I don't think CW can screen a show even if it lost money for them, while the WB side will be okay about it (actually I doubt this would be the case as well) I am pretty sure the CBS side of the company will not be too kind for taking a hit for some other production company they do not own or have associated with.

Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
Have you met her? I doubt it, in which case you are making your judgement call on her based on your perceptions, just as others who don't like her for whatever reason are making theirs based on their perceptions.
I did work with her around 10 years ago when we both worked at MTV Australia. I don't think she is that bad as any people say but I don't think she is an angel either, while I do not see anything that I will label her bad, my workmate Tash don't have much good thing to say about her....Not sure what's her issue with her tho, you will need to ask her :)
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

:hmmm: So maybe not 'totally nice' then as was suggested... :giggle:
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

tallyho wrote:
3 years ago
:hmmm: So maybe not 'totally nice' then as was suggested... :giggle:
There is a saying here in OZ, if you want to know TV/Movie stars before they are famous, come work in Australian TV industry.....My mentor worked in Channel 7 for like 30 + years (The same guy who basically got me a job now on Channel 7), he worked with Eric Bana on All Saints, Nicole Kidman on Five Miles Creek and some more Hollywood star and some up and coming Hollywood star who start their journey in Home And Away. I personally know some people I go to Uni with worked with Margot Robbie when she was in Neighbour...…

Anyway, most star are outright have a good rep, like Eric Bana, he is, as my mentor's said, a bloke's bloke. Some like Ruby Rose, they don't have much rep in the industry, and people can either like her if they like her, hate her if they don't, I mean, for what I know, she stay quiet most of the time, so I can't make out.
Last edited by AvaHeinz 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

Visitor wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
I think the reason why CW keep buying Arrowverse show is because they are contractually obliged to. WB Television (The company who produce Arrowverse) also produce other content CW uses, and what I know form working on TV industry is that a network usually set a contract with production company and buy a number of show to make a what we called "A creative flow" so it gives the Production more creative control on shows production given if they have a hit show with a network to stand on. On the other hand, Fox is the "dumping ground" for all fox studio show (not after Disney deal tho) because both were run solely by Fox, they can basically dump their show in, but that does not mean Fox channel would take the loss as long as they are produced by 20th Century Fox television, in fact, 20th Century Fox television is not a strong TV production powerhouse anyway, if you look at its program catalogue, you will see they generally have 2 to3 years run before getting cancelled on Fox with an exception of few goes beyond 5 years (X-File, Arrested Development and Sons of Anarchy is the noticeable exception) except animation series, because they don't have much production cost associated with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2 ... roductions

As I said, no network would take a dive for production company, unless they are advised to, or in other word, forced to. And in this case, the CW is not even wholly owned by WB, I don't think they will do it if a show is not viable
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Visitor wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
I think the reason why CW keep buying Arrowverse show is because they are contractually obliged to. WB Television (The company who produce Arrowverse) also produce other content CW uses, and what I know form working on TV industry is that a network usually set a contract with production company and buy a number of show to make a what we called "A creative flow" so it gives the Production more creative control on shows production given if they have a hit show with a network to stand on. On the other hand, Fox is the "dumping ground" for all fox studio show (not after Disney deal tho) because both were run solely by Fox, they can basically dump their show in, but that does not mean Fox channel would take the loss as long as they are produced by 20th Century Fox television, in fact, 20th Century Fox television is not a strong TV production powerhouse anyway, if you look at its program catalogue, you will see they generally have 2 to3 years run before getting cancelled on Fox with an exception of few goes beyond 5 years (X-File, Arrested Development and Sons of Anarchy is the noticeable exception) except animation series, because they don't have much production cost associated with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2 ... roductions

As I said, no network would take a dive for production company, unless they are advised to, or in other word, forced to. And in this case, the CW is not even wholly owned by WB, I don't think they will do it if a show is not viable
Sons of Anarchy was on the FX cable network, not FOX.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Visitor wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
I think the reason why CW keep buying Arrowverse show is because they are contractually obliged to. WB Television (The company who produce Arrowverse) also produce other content CW uses, and what I know form working on TV industry is that a network usually set a contract with production company and buy a number of show to make a what we called "A creative flow" so it gives the Production more creative control on shows production given if they have a hit show with a network to stand on. On the other hand, Fox is the "dumping ground" for all fox studio show (not after Disney deal tho) because both were run solely by Fox, they can basically dump their show in, but that does not mean Fox channel would take the loss as long as they are produced by 20th Century Fox television, in fact, 20th Century Fox television is not a strong TV production powerhouse anyway, if you look at its program catalogue, you will see they generally have 2 to3 years run before getting cancelled on Fox with an exception of few goes beyond 5 years (X-File, Arrested Development and Sons of Anarchy is the noticeable exception) except animation series, because they don't have much production cost associated with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2 ... roductions

As I said, no network would take a dive for production company, unless they are advised to, or in other word, forced to. And in this case, the CW is not even wholly owned by WB, I don't think they will do it if a show is not viable
Sons of Anarchy was on the FX cable network, not FOX.
It was made by 20th century fox television tho…….

I was making a point that Fox produced show was generally bad, and Son of Anarchy is one of the exception. Fox sold its shows to everyone, not just back to their own network. Also, FX is the cable arm of Fox....Much like what Foxtel is to Fox (or strictly speaking, News Corp)
Dazzle1
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1769
Joined: 10 years ago

theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
theScribbler wrote:
3 years ago
Dazzle1 wrote:
3 years ago
If Ruby Rose is leaving or was forced out due to her complaint of long hours.

In today's global crisis with many forced out of work, why should we not find her in contempt for her complaint about having work and some extra hours in a nonessential profession?
Cause she seems like a nice person and not a MBJW.
What is a MBJW?
Don't know if she is nice or not.

But sorry I don't think she had it that tough if this was not injury related.

I think those who are waiting for line for food have it tough, or those working 12-16 hours in the hospital have it tough,
MBJW = Man-Baby Justice Warrior

And Ruby's totally nice. She's not mean-spirited like some people, posting in a forum where she judges someone in the dumbest way possible for the dumbest of reasons. She's not saying they complained of long hours when she has no idea what the real or full story is. Or trying to enlist others to 'find' this someone 'in contempt' for the lamest reason one could imagine.

She's not out there saying she doesn't think so-and-so had it tough, like she's in any position to know.

Yep, Ruby's totally nice, unlike who she would be if she were like the person I describe above. But she's not that, so thumbs up Ruby!
So another personal attack. I did not attacker her on her gender, sex or anything else.

I posted if the reason she is quitting because she thinks has to work long tough hours, she has it pretty easy compared to people in essential jobs. And I do know some actors and they have it much easier than someone who works in a commission sales job
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

Here's a brief article from Forbes explaining the CW network...

The CW Doesn't Care About Live Views Because The CW Doesn't Have Major Stake In Its Programming
Jan 11, 2016

"The CW has always been: great, watch us on linear, watch us on live plus same day, but just watch us. Our point of view is, if you missed it, come see it on DVR, come see it on digital. Just come see it and talk about it." This was a statement made by CW president Mark Pedowitz during the network’s presentation at this year’s winter TCA conference. However, it’s a far cry from one made by the man in 2012 to THR where he said, “I had an epiphany in December, when I started looking at the social-media grids like Get Glue… or look at live-plus seven numbers, which we don't get paid for, and we're tripling our women 18-to-34 ratings. You start to realize these shows are working, but the key is to find a way to get them to come back to view the shows live.” The fact is, both are true. The CW doesn’t care about live viewership all that much… except for when it does. Of course, some may choose to interpret the change of heart as a move of progression in that of how networks think of their audience… but that’s wishful thinking. Like it or not, the real reason The CW doesn’t care about live viewership today is because it has no real financial stake in the shows it airs.

Before anyone gets defensive, one should note that having no financial stake doesn’t mean the network doesn’t care about what makes it to air. Rather, it cares very much, but in a different way. As mentioned many times before, it wasn’t too long ago – 2013 in fact – CBS Corporation president Leslie Moonves stated, “The CW as an entity may lose some money. However, CW is owned by two companies that produce the shows. The shows bring us more revenue than the losses do. So it’s still valuable, and there’s still a marketplace for it.” What Moonves refers to is the idea of The CW being a co-owned venture by that of CBS and Warner Bros. (the two networks were famously brought together in 2006 to solve the dilemma of the failing WB and UPN networks). Why does all of this minutia matter? Because it ties directly into what the true purpose of The CW is.

Unlike the big four of CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox, The CW is not a network trying to make money on a grand scale off its live viewership. Rather, it was created as a vessel for 1st-run domestic broadcast. Why is that important? Because without somewhere to air first, there’s no way for television studios to achieve the syndication friendly number of 88-episodes necessary for profitable 2nd-tier syndication deals. The CW is a network created with the singular goal of getting the shows of its parent company to syndication qualifying numbers. That’s why most of its programming still runs traditional 22-episode seasons and why there’s never been outside programming from the likes of 20th Century Fox, NBCUniversal and ABC Studios featured on it."

link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillbar ... pernatural

-------
Here's a somewhat longer article from Tracking-board.com

Tracking-board.com...
The CW Redefines What It Means to Be a Success (Network Series)
October 4, 2017


:supes: :ybat:
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Visitor wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Set aside channel taking a loss for a production company is highly unusual. If any case, channel operation are more fragile than production company. I don't think it is a good business practice for TV channel to take loss for a production company when they have their own problem at their plate (Advert, Rating and management issue)
This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
I think the reason why CW keep buying Arrowverse show is because they are contractually obliged to. WB Television (The company who produce Arrowverse) also produce other content CW uses, and what I know form working on TV industry is that a network usually set a contract with production company and buy a number of show to make a what we called "A creative flow" so it gives the Production more creative control on shows production given if they have a hit show with a network to stand on. On the other hand, Fox is the "dumping ground" for all fox studio show (not after Disney deal tho) because both were run solely by Fox, they can basically dump their show in, but that does not mean Fox channel would take the loss as long as they are produced by 20th Century Fox television, in fact, 20th Century Fox television is not a strong TV production powerhouse anyway, if you look at its program catalogue, you will see they generally have 2 to3 years run before getting cancelled on Fox with an exception of few goes beyond 5 years (X-File, Arrested Development and Sons of Anarchy is the noticeable exception) except animation series, because they don't have much production cost associated with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2 ... roductions

As I said, no network would take a dive for production company, unless they are advised to, or in other word, forced to. And in this case, the CW is not even wholly owned by WB, I don't think they will do it if a show is not viable
Sons of Anarchy was on the FX cable network, not FOX.
It was made by 20th century fox television tho…….

I was making a point that Fox produced show was generally bad, and Son of Anarchy is one of the exception. Fox sold its shows to everyone, not just back to their own network. Also, FX is the cable arm of Fox....Much like what Foxtel is to Fox (or strictly speaking, News Corp)
The thing is though, is that FX in a sense has a better track record than FOX when it comes to creating hour long dramas. On FOX you have a higher ratings threshold in order to be termed a successful series and remain on the air, and because of that higher threshold many of their series fail to make it to seasons 2, 3, or 4, while on FX, the ratings threshold is much lower, that the cable station can afford to be more patient and nurturing with these series and absent those more challenging FOX series ratings expectations many of these FX series go on to have longer shelf lives unlike their FOX counterparts, and that is why Sons of Anarchy is not the noticeable exception you refer to in your post. FX has also been the home to the Shield, Fargo, the American Horror Story franchise, among others who have had healthy multi season successful runs on the cable channel.
AvaHeinz
Producer
Producer
Posts: 147
Joined: 7 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
bushwackerbob wrote:
3 years ago
AvaHeinz wrote:
3 years ago
Visitor wrote:
3 years ago

This was one of the main reasons that Fox Television ran the "X-Files" as it was being made by Fox Studios and they couldn't find a possibly successful show to fill the Friday night time slot. They would rather keep the money in the family than give it to another studio. Fox initially put all its advertising money into the lead Friday show, "The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr." and until mid season when the ratings for "X-Files" were going up ignored it. Fox never expected a hit and this was another show that was just supposed to fill a slot until they could find a replacement.

CW as the merger of the older WB and UPN channels is almost never expected to have decent ratings compared to the other commercial channels. The merger was done to prevent both older channels from going away since neither had enough viewers to sustain a network on its own. Even after all these years it hasn't come close to the success of Fox, which was the old last place commercial network.

Another reason for the CW to keep buying Arrow'verse shows is to keep the production company happy that is making most of its highest rated shows. That's why at least in the US that more shows keep coming from the same studios on a channel. It's been a practice from even before studios could own networks, where a producer would be offered a time slot for a show before there was an idea for a show.
I think the reason why CW keep buying Arrowverse show is because they are contractually obliged to. WB Television (The company who produce Arrowverse) also produce other content CW uses, and what I know form working on TV industry is that a network usually set a contract with production company and buy a number of show to make a what we called "A creative flow" so it gives the Production more creative control on shows production given if they have a hit show with a network to stand on. On the other hand, Fox is the "dumping ground" for all fox studio show (not after Disney deal tho) because both were run solely by Fox, they can basically dump their show in, but that does not mean Fox channel would take the loss as long as they are produced by 20th Century Fox television, in fact, 20th Century Fox television is not a strong TV production powerhouse anyway, if you look at its program catalogue, you will see they generally have 2 to3 years run before getting cancelled on Fox with an exception of few goes beyond 5 years (X-File, Arrested Development and Sons of Anarchy is the noticeable exception) except animation series, because they don't have much production cost associated with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2 ... roductions

As I said, no network would take a dive for production company, unless they are advised to, or in other word, forced to. And in this case, the CW is not even wholly owned by WB, I don't think they will do it if a show is not viable
Sons of Anarchy was on the FX cable network, not FOX.
It was made by 20th century fox television tho…….

I was making a point that Fox produced show was generally bad, and Son of Anarchy is one of the exception. Fox sold its shows to everyone, not just back to their own network. Also, FX is the cable arm of Fox....Much like what Foxtel is to Fox (or strictly speaking, News Corp)
The thing is though, is that FX in a sense has a better track record than FOX when it comes to creating hour long dramas. On FOX you have a higher ratings threshold in order to be termed a successful series and remain on the air, and because of that higher threshold many of their series fail to make it to seasons 2, 3, or 4, while on FX, the ratings threshold is much lower, that the cable station can afford to be more patient and nurturing with these series and absent those more challenging FOX series ratings expectations many of these FX series go on to have longer shelf lives unlike their FOX counterparts, and that is why Sons of Anarchy is not the noticeable exception you refer to in your post. FX has also been the home to the Shield, Fargo, the American Horror Story franchise, among others who have had healthy multi season successful runs on the cable channel.
I think you failed to understand my scope.

I am not talking about FOX (The Channel) I am talking about the Production Company known as "20th Century Fox Television" The former is the big 4, the latter is not even a successful second tier production company, with most of their production REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY WERE SCREENED, did not make past 4 or 5 seasons.

Fox, or FX is another issue, by the way, The Shield is Sony Production (Columbia then Sony) and Fargo is not a Fox Production too, they are MGM, which, in another word, Sony again. So yes, Son of Anarchy is one of the few TV shows that come from "Fox", read 20th Century Fox Television", that last for more than 5 seasons.

If you have to talk about why show on FX seems more successful than Fox, first of all, depends on what you mean by "Success" if you gauge that by how many season there are, then the issue is and always is "Money" FX get second tier show, and sometime they break out, sometime they didn't but either way, their production budget are small. Fox on the other hand have a higher threshold, that mean their budget would also be bigger, it's not surprise at all if a failed Fox show cost over 100 millions while a successful FX show only cost around half or 1/3 that much.

But if your yardstick is the quality of programming, then Fox is miles ahead of FX. Even tho if a show did not last long.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

The platform that these shows are on matters Ava as well as content. If your yardstick for the quality of programming for these hour dramas is Emmy Award nominations, based on how industry insiders who are actually in the business judge their contemporaries in the last five years or so, then FX definitely wins that battle. Have you actually checked out FOX's actual slate these days? They seem to have slowly shifted away from the production of these hour long dramas in favor of more lame reality shows and live sports with the addition of Thursday night NFL football, Smackdown (I know, not real sports) and baseball and college football on Saturday nights. That is 3 out of 4 nights. They are not creating many major hits nowadays such as 24 or X-Files, and those days seem gone. If you don't realize how good some of these stellar shows on FX are, then you don't know what you are missing. FOX in my subjective opinion is a virtual wasteland now when it comes to hour long dramas, and that is why they cancel these garbage shows after one season. Just because these shows appear on a smaller and less seen platform does not mean that many of these shows are second tier series. You should check some of these shows out, I think you would change your mind about classifying these shows as "second tier" shows. Just because a show has a bigger budget does not automatically mean that it will be successful. There are many shows on basic cable that have modest budgets in comparison to the big 4, and they are deemed rather successful such as Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Suits, the Walking Dead, and others. I will take FX's slate over FOX primetime slate any day of the week.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bat ... 45373.html

Plans to create a new character, not Kate Kane, to assume the Batwoman mantle. Pretty much going in a completely new direction without the sisterly fighting, dad/daughter relationships, and relation to Batman. Although they are keeping the lesbian part of Batwoman.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

I think Bane from Harley Quinn should play Batwoman.
Post Reply