NBC programming in dire straits

[genius]

Congratulations NBC. First American Gladiators now you're airing a pilot movie for a new Knight Rider series next month. Again, truly the bottom of the barrel, and I suppose the writer's strike may very well kill it off.

 

[Garrett]

Congratulations NBC. First American Gladiators now you're airing a pilot movie for a new Knight Rider series next month. Again, truly the bottom of the barrel, and I suppose the writer's strike may very well kill it off.
[/quot]

Ok, I get the American Gladiators part.
But why do you feel that the Knight Rider series is bottom of the barrel? It is a direct continuation of the orignal, and Hasslehoff will appear in it (as his son becomes the new Knight Rider). Knight Rider was a popular show in its day. I think we need to wait and see how it turns out before we start jumping to conclusions. This might actually be a good thing, who knows?

 

[Braves2005]

I saw the promos for this last night while Deal Or No Deal was on. Didn't the SCI-FI channel revive Knight Rider as Knight Rider 2000 a few years back as a series or was it a movie?

Look at how they ruined the revival of The Bionic Woman. What's next? Wonder Woman?

 

[azumanga]

Of course, how many episodes will have original scripts?

ABC brought back "Mission Impossible" in 1988 during the writer's strike then, with the intent of using scripts from the original series, slightly updated to reflect the late-1980s. By the time the show premiered, the strike was over, and they were able to write all-new scripts. This version only lasted a couple of seasons, however.

This time around, with the season itself in dire straits, is if the return of Knight Rider would be a success for NBC, especially with limited resources. If it is a success, I won't mind seeing something like a new version of "Emergency!" or "Adam 12". Or maybe even "Sanford & Son".

 

[anotherguyTN]

If the networks go to remaking older shows with reused scripts, how about bringing back another version of The Twilight Zone on CBS? I know there was a new version on UPN that only lasted one season a few years back, but this could be a good time to try again with the original scripts.

 

[daveallen99]

How about taking a few old series' that received critical success but were nevertheless cancelled after just a few episodes, and getting out the old scripts and trying them again with maybe some tweaks like different casting and maybe different timeslots?

If they catch on second time around, keep them in production with new scripts once the strike is over.

Just trying to think about what they're going to do because they can't live off a steady diet of game shows, reality shows, and news. And, it may come to the point where they have to.

 

[FilmCritic3K]

I saw the promos for this last night while Deal Or No Deal was on. Didn't the SCI-FI channel revive Knight Rider as Knight Rider 2000 a few years back as a series or was it a movie?

It was a TV movie that debuted on FOX in 1991, I believe. There was another TV movie, Knight Rider 2010.

Then in 1997, the syndicated series Team Knight Rider debuted; it lasted one season.

 

[OhReally?]

Congratulations NBC. First American Gladiators now you're airing a pilot movie for a new Knight Rider series next month. Again, truly the bottom of the barrel, and I suppose the writer's strike may very well kill it off.

Well your alias is certainly not fitting for you. : This (KnightRider) had been planned well before the writers' strike. And many seem to be liking the newer version of "AG" since it's doing pretty well in the ratings and is being brought back for a second season.

Now, I wish they'd bring back "Baby Hit Me One More Time" that was on during the summer of 2003 or 04.

 

[BRNout]

You have to admit, American Gladiators is pretty low-brow stuff. Come on, it's like NBC fired off another salvo on network TV's desperate race to the bottom!

As for the reprise of Knight Rider, I totally believe that the idea has been there for a long time. It shows the lack of originality that permeates network programming departments these days. And, has for at least 10 years.

Apologists for the big networks may say that they are just "giving the public what it wants" while quietly spending 80% of their efforts in going after the 18-34 demo. The trouble is that network TV viewership is shrinking every year. Yes, there is a lot more competition than in the "old days". However, the really good shows still garner big ratings. But the majority of what is on is pretty blah material. Cable networks are now eating old media's lunch for them. And, NBC is the first in line to go hungry at midday. Certain cable nets are coming out with some pretty interesting fare.

If AG is pulling down great ratings, then that says some not-so-flattering things about how low we have collectively sunk as a society.

 

[BDBopper]

here's a neat (although stupid) idea. This strike seems to be going on forever. What bout going into the cans and for a month have a week of 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's (one decade a week) shows that were on your network in their classic slots during the week?

Yeah I know that's impossible. But I might actually watch network TV in primetime again. I rarely have a reason do it now (or for the past five years for that matter).

 

[imhomerjay]

Apologists for the big networks may say that they are just "giving the public what it wants" while quietly spending 80% of their efforts in going after the 18-34 demo. The trouble is that network TV viewership is shrinking every year. Yes, there is a lot more competition than in the "old days". However, the really good shows still garner big ratings. But the majority of what is on is pretty blah material. Cable networks are now eating old media's lunch for them. And, NBC is the first in line to go hungry at midday. Certain cable nets are coming out with some pretty interesting fare.

If AG is pulling down great ratings, then that says some not-so-flattering things about how low we have collectively sunk as a society.

However, what qualifies as "big ratings" in many cases today--CSI, or Grey's Anatomy come to mind--if they received the same number of viewers 10, 20 or 30 years ago would have been duds. The more competition is not an excuse either way, it's simply a fact. When millions of people have 200 or more channels on their TV, video all over the Internet, DVD collections and so on, the definition of success changes.

 

[dustintv]

I don't like American Gladiators either, but then again I listen to the radio or view stuff online most of these days.

 

[genius]

However, what qualifies as "big ratings" in many cases today--CSI, or Grey's Anatomy come to mind--if they received the same number of viewers 10, 20 or 30 years ago would have been duds. The more competition is not an excuse either way, it's simply a fact. When millions of people have 200 or more channels on their TV, video all over the Internet, DVD collections and so on, the definition of success changes.

Exactly. Just a few years the 4.8 rating American Gladiators got last week would have been laughable and the show pulled. Instead ratings for broadcast television are down across the board and they are forced to spin by putting more emphasis on demos.

Well your alias is certainly not fitting for you. : This (KnightRider) had been planned well before the writers' strike. And many seem to be liking the newer version of "AG" since it's doing pretty well in the ratings and is being brought back for a second season.

So what's your point other than to be the 3,586th person to poke some fun at my screen name? That fact they even had to restort to remaking a, in my opinion, cheesy 80s series in the first place is pretty bad itself. Again, had American Gladiators been revived five years ago and made its debut with that 5.9 rating, it wouldn't even be consdidered a success.

 

[Markxxx]

I was listening to the news and I heard the networks are doing OK as they are getting less money for their ads, but they don't pay the writers or other workers who were laid off, so they are still coming out ahead, so far anyway.

So in terms of money the networks aren't hurting yet, while the writers are.

I love old time radio and they could easily take them scripts which are excellent and adapt them to a TV show. The funny thing is I listen to "My Favourite Husband," and most of the radio script is VERBATUM - word for word- the same as "I Love Lucy," scripts. So the writers didn't have to adapt them much. Oddly enough the shows are just as funny, even without the "I Love Lucy" cast, which shows it's the writing.

 

[quadraphonic]

Speaking of Dire Straits, maybe NBC will bring back "Friday Night Videos."
Or a whole show designed around the video for "Money for Nothing." Those guys were movers, weren't they? The sit-comedy in a moving company could practically write itself, it would be an improv show. ;D

 

[imhomerjay]

Exactly. Just a few years the 4.8 rating American Gladiators got last week would have been laughable and the show pulled. Instead ratings for broadcast television are down across the board and they are forced to spin by putting more emphasis on demos.

The flip side is that when people look back with the rose-colored glasses nostalgia provides, they overlook that had some of the big hits of the pre-hundreds of channels era been running today, they would not have drawn the numbers they did back then. It's not a valid comparison to say that show X (whatever era you like, from I Love Lucy to the Cosby Show) was better because it had bigger numbers (the subjective arguments of quality are another discussion).

Likewise, the emphasis on demos is not purely a factor of networks trying to pump up numbers that aren't what they once were--it's a fact of life today that is simply different from years past. When there were three choices, and shows delivered pretty much every demo, it didn't matter. But when you have 300 choices splitting the pie in ever way possible, of course the networks have to focus on demos more.

Comparisons to the past based on numbers are wholly invalid.

 

[Corky Marlowe]

What bout going into the cans and for a month have a week of 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's (one decade a week) shows that were on your network in their classic slots during the week?
One of the biggest reasons that will never happen? For the networks which chose to air old shows, it would be like holding up a sign saying, "Um, we got nothin'."

 

[BRNout]

The flip side is that when people look back with the rose-colored glasses nostalgia provides, they overlook that had some of the big hits of the pre-hundreds of channels era been running today, they would not have drawn the numbers they did back then. It's not a valid comparison to say that show X (whatever era you like, from I Love Lucy to the Cosby Show) was better because it had bigger numbers (the subjective arguments of quality are another discussion).

Likewise, the emphasis on demos is not purely a factor of networks trying to pump up numbers that aren't what they once were--it's a fact of life today that is simply different from years past. When there were three choices, and shows delivered pretty much every demo, it didn't matter. But when you have 300 choices splitting the pie in ever way possible, of course the networks have to focus on demos more.

Comparisons to the past based on numbers are wholly invalid.

I'll agree with the second part of your statement (about comparing apples to oranges), but disagree with your first one. Those earlier shows that you cite were designed for general entertainment and hit pretty much all demos. They weren't parsing the audience as what we see today. Therefore, a show like "Lucy" would still do great today because it can be enjoyed by everyone in the audience. More recent examples of this general focus would include shows such as "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Seinfeld" which appealed to a broad audience (and still do in syndication).

Much of what is on the big 4 networks now is basically aimed at the under-30 audience and is not enjoyable to anyone older than that. Even CBS tries to get into that act. When the aimed older, they had more viewers - I might add. And, the ad agencies punished them for it (getting to the root of this problem). I first noticed the new focus around 1999 or so and haven't enjoyed much on big 4 network TV since. Ironically, it is Fox that I watch the most of the four.

Now, you could argue that networks feel that they have to narrowcast their programming because of all of the other choices out there - but I don't tend to agree with strategy. But yes, times are different now. It used to be that there was something good to watch on at least one channel out of 4 or 5 every night. Now, I'm hard pressed to find something good to watch almost every night - with 200 channels to choose from! Progress, eh?

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Speaking of Dire Straits, maybe NBC will bring back "Friday Night Videos."
Or a whole show designed around the video for "Money for Nothing." Those guys were movers, weren't they? The sit-comedy in a moving company could practically write itself, it would be an improv show. ;D

You can watch any music video you want on the internet, so why watch the music videos NBC tells you to watch?

Times have changed. I highly doubt NBC will ever restore Friday night videos.

 

[imhomerjay]

I'll agree with the second part of your statement (about comparing apples to oranges), but disagree with your first one. Those earlier shows that you cite were designed for general entertainment and hit pretty much all demos. They weren't parsing the audience as what we see today. Therefore, a show like "Lucy" would still do great today because it can be enjoyed by everyone in the audience. More recent examples of this general focus would include shows such as "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "Seinfeld" which appealed to a broad audience (and still do in syndication).

Much of what is on the big 4 networks now is basically aimed at the under-30 audience and is not enjoyable to anyone older than that. Even CBS tries to get into that act. When the aimed older, they had more viewers - I might add. And, the ad agencies punished them for it (getting to the root of this problem). I first noticed the new focus around 1999 or so and haven't enjoyed much on big 4 network TV since. Ironically, it is Fox that I watch the most of the four.

Now, you could argue that networks feel that they have to narrowcast their programming because of all of the other choices out there - but I don't tend to agree with strategy. But yes, times are different now. It used to be that there was something good to watch on at least one channel out of 4 or 5 every night. Now, I'm hard pressed to find something good to watch almost every night - with 200 channels to choose from! Progress, eh?

Progress is different to many different people. My wife loves the various Discovery spin-off channels, for example, so those are progress to one person. Another may like the focus of the History Channel, or Lifetime's movies or what have you. I may not, you may not, but the fact that there are channels for so many special interests may be progress to those fans.

Sinefeld and Raymond were certainly mass-appeal shows, but compare the total viewership to the days of Lucy or Dick Van Dyke. "Mass" is different with everything else competing for attention, and that can be broadened beyond the traditional definitino of television channels. I like on-demand services quite often, and that doesn't show up in the ratings.

Also factor in lifestyle and technology changes in the home. When I grew up, "the" (as in the one) TV was in the family room. That's it. Not one in the family room, one in mom & dad's bedroom, possibly one in each kids' room, one in the rec room, one in the home office....and wherever else TVs are now (and with TV tuners for PCs, that could be nearly anywhere). The shows 'appealed' to everyone in the house because to watch TV meant everyone who wanted to watch television at all was watching the same set. Today, my wife and I don't even have to watch the same show many times, with a set in our bedroom. In a real example, she'll watch Grey's Anatomy while I watch CSI--two popular shows, and our pattern of viewing mirrors those shows' general demo breakdowns, with Grey's skewing more female and CSI more male. Go back 20 or 30 years to the days of one TV in a home and we'd be picking one or the other, not both (perhaps 20 years ago we would have been one of the earlier VCR users, but that certainly didn't count in the ratings then).