HAWAII FIVE-O LOSSES CONTINUE TO MOUNT

[LKellerIII]

To paraphrase, the imminent death of Hawaii Five-O has been greatly exagerrated. From what I understand, it is still the top rated show in its time-slot, and I've read that CBS has been very successful in selling the show to networks on other continents, enough to cover the costs of production, or even turn a small profit for the network. Most shows don't show a profit until they're sold into American syndication - if they get that lucky.

 

[landtuna]

... it is still the top rated show in its time-slot, and I've read that CBS has been very successful in selling the show to networks on other continents, enough to cover the costs of production, or even turn a small profit for the network.

Wasn't Baywatch the most popular international TV show for awhile?

Says all you need to know about the international viewing audience I think.But maybe that's the answer for the networks. Create shows than transcend international boundaries and that will sell elsewhere. OTOH cartoons will do that.

 

[KTU_Fan]

The show just got picked up for a full season...

 

[Nate Wesley]

... it is still the top rated show in its time-slot, and I've read that CBS has been very successful in selling the show to networks on other continents, enough to cover the costs of production, or even turn a small profit for the network.

Wasn't Baywatch the most popular international TV show for awhile?

Says all you need to know about the international viewing audience I think.But maybe that's the answer for the networks. Create shows than transcend international boundaries and that will sell elsewhere. OTOH cartoons will do that.

Hi hater.

 

[snakemao]

I just don't care for remakes of any kind.Just shows a lack of talent among writers.We these not the same people who went on strike years ago stopping seasons dead in their tracks.

 

[landtuna]

I just don't care for remakes of any kind.Just shows a lack of talent among writers.We these not the same people who went on strike years ago stopping seasons dead in their tracks.

Writers write, they don't decide what shows will be on nor do they usually outline the show content. If writers are given four days to come up with a screenplay then the quality usually reflects that fact. If they have more time to develop a plotline and don't have to <insert SFX and up-close face shot here> to stretch a thin plot continually then the story will usually be better quality.

Lay the blame where it belongs - at the feet of the producers and their desperate network programmers.

 

[imhomerjay]

How about where it really should be if one feels some compelling need to think "blame" is needed: the audience. Producers, programmers...they have a simple goal: make money. Like any business. Produce/air what will draw eyeballs that can be sold. We know not everyone will subscribe to the esteemed choices of content some individuals would like, but that's the way the marketplace works. Deliver what enough people want and get paid for it.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Writers write, they don't decide what shows will be on nor do they usually outline the show content.

...and that's exactly it! There are tons of pilot episodes of tv shows produced all the time. The writers are paid for their time, but they don't decide what airs.

Although, with this being a 500 channel Universe, I bet there are tons of pilot episodes in the past year or two that could be good enough to launch the "Pilot episode" channel. ;D ???

(Yep. All Pilot episodes, all the time!)

 

[landtuna]

How about where it really should be if one feels some compelling need to think "blame" is needed: the audience. Producers, programmers...they have a simple goal: make money. Like any business. Produce/air what will draw eyeballs that can be sold. We know not everyone will subscribe to the esteemed choices of content some individuals would like, but that's the way the marketplace works. Deliver what enough people want and get paid for it.

The audience doesn't have direct control of the various program offered. That choice is made by the producers and networks. The audience can vote only by watching or not. And if recent TV history is any indication one successful show will automatically generate several impersonators - some may be good (unlikely) and some bad (likely). I've been watching TV since 1953 and not once did anyone ask me what I wanted to watch.

 

[Nate Wesley]

I've been watching TV since 1953 and not once did anyone ask me what I wanted to watch.

Well golly, if you'd only said that from the start, we'd all have saved thousands of keystrokes.

 

[oldiesfan6479]

I've been watching TV since 1953 and not once did anyone ask me what I wanted to watch.

Senor Tuna--how was that first day of programming on KOPO-TV 13?
Films, kinnies, and Visiting With Virginia?

 

[imhomerjay]

The audience doesn't have direct control of the various program offered. That choice is made by the producers and networks. The audience can vote only by watching or not. And if recent TV history is any indication one successful show will automatically generate several impersonators - some may be good (unlikely) and some bad (likely). I've been watching TV since 1953 and not once did anyone ask me what I wanted to watch.

And to be more technical, the producers don't decide what airs, as they don't run the networks and have no air time of their own to award to anyone. But that no one has asked you personally what you want is irrelevant. The audience's vote is their choice. They don't watch, the shows go away. It's called control. Sorry that the population at large doesn't share your particular tastes, but it doesn't change reality, except perhaps the self-created kind.

 

[bpatrick]

Homer, I bet even you have had favorite shows you hated to
see canceled, but it's a fact of life: viewership goes down (or,
alternately, the talent makes the decision to quit--think Lucy,
Andy Griffith, Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Jerry Seinfeld,
just to name a few), the show goes off. To use what might be
a cliche: You vote with the remote. Right now, I don't
see "Hawaii Five-O" as an endangered species.

Let's brainstorm an idea. Let's say "Hawaii Five-O" starts a trend
toward revivals of shows from the '60s, '70s, even the '80s (dramas
preferably, sitcoms are OK, no game shows since revivals are common
practice and have been since the '70s). What would you like to see?

 

[gregg75]

Well said. At least somebody gets it.

 

[Garrett]

here's the show's viewing numbers
week 1 14.2 million
week 2 12.7
week 3 12.0

So, those who are watching, is it getting better or not?

I would hardly call a drop of .7 "a mounting loss." In the world of statistics that is consider an insignificant number.

 

[landtuna]

I've been watching TV since 1953 and not once did anyone ask me what I wanted to watch.

Senor Tuna--how was that first day of programming on KOPO-TV 13?
Films, kinnies, and Visiting With Virginia?

My parents didn't buy their first TV until 1954. Before that I watched TV at a friends house (but only in the evenings). I didn't catch (or even remember) the sign-on's of KOPO and KVOA but do remember quite well KGUN.

 

[imhomerjay]

Homer, I bet even you have had favorite shows you hated to see canceled, but it's a fact of life: viewership goes down (or, alternately, the talent makes the decision to quit--think Lucy,
Andy Griffith, Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Jerry Seinfeld, just to name a few), the show goes off.
To use what might be a cliche: You vote with the remote.

Precisely what I’ve been saying. Yes, I’ve hated to see favorites go, but accept that it’s a fact of life, be it a newer show I liked that didn’t catch on, or a longtime favorite that wore out its welcome with other people faster than me. But I don’t go railing against some alleged “network programmer” or “producer” boogeyman or bemoaning the passing of some invented “golden age” that’s nothing more than putting on rose-colored glasses about the past. I realize my tastes align with others sometimes, and not others. The public has spoken about what it wants.

Right now, I don't see "Hawaii Five-O" as an endangered species.

Right now, it’s not. Someday it will be. It happens to every single show—not going out on a limb to say it will someday bite the dust when everything does.

 

[landtuna]

And to be more technical, the producers don't decide what airs, as they don't run the networks and have no air time of their own to award to anyone.

Well, in a way they do. By deciding to produce and promote certain shows to the networks they absolutely do decide what we will watch. The networks decide which shows to air out of the choice given them by the producers. It is understandable, although not acceptable.

But that no one has asked you personally what you want is irrelevant.

Actually, it is not.

The audience's vote is their choice. They don't watch, the shows go away. It's called control. Sorry that the population at large doesn't share your particular tastes, but it doesn't change reality, except perhaps the self-created kind.

The audience can vote only on those shows actually aired. If all of them are crap then the choice is a crap-shoot. A bunch of junk is still total junk.

And you are correct. I don't share the viewing desires of a 23-year old hence '24' was theirs and I didn't watch it. Again, that is not the point. There is more than enough air time for programs that appeal to children, teens, young and older adults. What we've got now is a very narrow-cast appealing to one specific demographic. While I understand the financial aspects of this decision it doesn't change the fact that these shows are primarily brain bombs.

 

[LKellerIII]

And you are correct. I don't share the viewing desires of a 23-year old hence '24' was theirs and I didn't watch it. Again, that is not the point. There is more than enough air time for programs that appeal to children, teens, young and older adults. What we've got now is a very narrow-cast appealing to one specific demographic. While I understand the financial aspects of this decision it doesn't change the fact that these shows are primarily brain bombs.

I don't disagree, but if you put it in historical perspective, most TV programming has been mass-market "brain bombs."

50s and early 60s - Lots of westerns, sitcoms, and Warner Bros detective shows (77 Sunset Strip, etc.) that seem laughably dated and naive today, not to mention cheaply produced.

Late 60s, early 70s- mindless comedies (Bewitched, Jeannie, etc.), and more silly detective shows.

Mid Late 70s - every kind of silly detective - blind detective, fat detective, Starsky & Hutch, Baretta, etc. The era of Quinn Martin and Aaron Spelling.

80s - more of the same with some different producers, though Aaron Spelling still ruled. Hunter, TJ Hooker, A Team, Charlie's Angels, etc. Ridiculous prime-time soaps (Dallas, Dynasty, etc.)

I could go on, but the fact is - every decade dominated by network TV has provided mostly mass-appeal mindless shows, with a few high quality exceptions in every decade.

Its the same today, but most of the better dramas can be found on basic cable, not the big 3 networks.

If, as I do, you liked some of the mindless crap from past decades, but don't like the current crap - it just means your tastes have evolved, not that TV is any worse.

 

[landtuna]

It happens to every single show—not going out on a limb to say it will someday bite the dust when everything does.

As long as we're getting "technical" here - there are numerous programs which were taken off the air for reasons other than their popularity. Not every program runs its course.