MYTH - Doctor Who Movie did poorly in US so FOX canceled it

TV Arts

SFTV_troy
Over the years I've heard a lot of people claim FOX canceled the 1996
Eighth Doctor Pilot episode because it did poorly.  I suspected that
was not correct so I looked-up the original Nielsen Ratings

- 5.5% of the US audience
- week of 5/13

5.5% is a respectable number.  It's equal to Star Trek DS9, half a
point higher than Xena, and one point higher than the same-week Star
Trek Voyager, Hercules, and Sliders episodes (all of which were
renewed).  It was also about 2 points higher than Babylon5 (3.2%) and
3 points higher than Space: Above & Beyond.
.

I suspect the reason FOX canceled the Doctor Who series after just one
pilot episode is for the same reason they canceled Firefly, Strange
Luck, Brisco County Jr, and other shows.  Even the popular X-Files was
at one time on FOX's chopping block, but it got a last minute reprieve
and a second season.

- FOX in the 1990s had a basic dislike of fantasy/scifi genre, not
because of a lack of viewers.  Had Doctor Who aired on any other
network, like WB or UPN, it probably would have survived.
                                            
john
...and all of which were rubbish...




It was also about 2 points higher than Babylon5 (3.2%) and


But it wasn't , and it didn't.  Move along, please... there's nothing to see 
here...
                                            
SFTV_troy
Even if we assume you're correct, it has nothing to do with the
"sellability" of a show.  Even crap can be profitable.  All of these
averaged around 4% viewership and therefore made enough profit to last
6-7 years on television.  Doctor Who's first pilot episode got 5.5%
viewership, therefore would have been profitable too.  IMHO.

Anyway my main mission was to refute this "myth" that people keep
repeating - that the 8th Doctor failed to attract an audience in
1996.  The reality is it did better than the other SF series of the
time.
                                            
US
Anyway my main mission was to refute this "myth" that people keep
repeating - that the 8th Doctor failed to attract an audience in
1996.  The reality is it did better than the other SF series of the
time.


Sadly, more people would rather watch crap like Roseanne (or Lost)

The masses are asses
                                            
Ignis
I guess I'm one of the asses who'd watch Roseanne or Lost any day
rather than that putrid witless rehash of a once great story. The only
saving grace was McCoy's brilliant, virtually silent, cameo; which
proves that with decent scripts he could have been  a first class
Doctor.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
As anyone who's ever watched, well, television can testify...

  All of these

At least in that case the network made a wise decision - profitable or
not, it was terrible.


"Keep repeating"? I hardly hear it mentioned at all - it's something I
imagine most of Who fandom would rather forget altogether.

Phil
                                            
SFTV_troy
I know and I don't understand why.  The 8th Doctor's first tv episode
is no worse than the 9th doctor's first episode.  Or the 10th's first
episode.  Or the 11th's first episode.  I also hear things like "the
doctor would never ride a cycle" or "there's too much action", which
makes little sense given how much action exists in the New 2005 BBC
series.

As for where I'm hearing it, mostly at rec.arts.sf.tv and on youtube
("the movie performed poorly in the US" various people say again and
again).  But when you look at the actual ratings, Doctor Who had above
average viewership in the US.

5.5% which is approximately 13 million viewers, which is good for a US
show.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
It's *far* worse than any of them. It has little to do with the
character, although the fact that McGann's Doctor was such an
anonymous nonentity that more than a decade's worth of additional
stories have failed to give him more of a personality than "he's the
one who likes bikes and cars" certainly didn't help. The much-slated
Eric Roberts was, if anything, the best thing in it; certainly his
camp panto act was the only thing reminiscent of British-made Who
after McCoy's short cameo. It was a shoddy remake of the Masters of
the Universe film (itself hardly a cinematic masterpiece) - two super-
aliens come to Earth to duke it out and engage in car chases- but more
importantly than the quality, it had *nothing* of the feel of Dr Who;
even rather bad opening stories for new Doctors (say, The Christmas
Invasion) felt like Dr Who, however many random continuity references
were inserted.

  I also hear things like "the

In reference to the film, or episode 2 of Planet of the Spiders?

 or "there's too much action", which

There's action and there's action. Action in modern Who, as in classic
Who, is dialogue-heavy (often dialogue-driven), and relates to the
plot. Action in the TVM is random bad TV movie action - things blow up
and people run around shooting/getting shot/beaten up without
achieving anything that progresses the story in any way. Who hasn't
been innocent of that in times past, but it's rarely taken up the
whole story (part 2 of Planet of the Spiders was just one long car
chase, with only a few lines of dialogue in the whole episode, but it
was one part of four or five).

Neither of which, however, is the important flaw with the story -
which as above is that it simply *wasn't Dr Who*. It was a by-the-
books action movie with Dr Who continuity references thrown in.

Phil
                                            
SFTV_troy
I haven't read any of them.  My only exposure to Doctor 8 is the two
hour pilot/movie.  I thought his exposure on the screen was better
than the first time I saw Doctors 2, 4, 5 (he slept in a damned box),
6, or 7.

Also better than the first time I saw Doctor 9, or 10.   But not as
good as Doctor 3 or 11's first screen time.






Well at least you have something good to say about it.


Never heard of it.



Apparently you've forgotten the most recent duel between Doctor 10 and
the Master, which had exactly the same feel.  Hell the doctor even had
the whole world chanting his name (or whatever).  So why is it okay
for the BBC to do the same stunt?  But not okay for the 96 film.  It
seems hypocritical to slam the BBC 1996 film while praising the 2009
story which was basically a rehash of the same "two aliens duking it
out for the planet"





Baloney.  While watching the most recent 2010 season I often thought
to myself, "The Doctor is running around pointlessly.  Let's stop
goofing off and get on with the story."  So to claim the BBC shows are
somehow superior when they commit the same "pointless action" as the
96 film strikes me as ludicrous.

BTW did you know the movie was:

- written by the BBC?  You're basically criticizing your own people.
.
                                            
Soze
Better than Troughton`s debut? Granted I`m too young to have actually *seen* 
it but from the audios it`s one of my favourite Dr Who stories ever. All 3 
of the final `classic` era Doctor`s had crappy opening stories but in 
fairness...most of their stories were fairly crappy.

I thought McGann showed promise, he was the shining light in a confused, 
muddled and rather boring TVM. It would have helped if McCoy was never in it 
( not a slur, he gave possibly his best performance ). This was, to a 
reasonable amount of the viewing public, a new TV series with a character 
they weren`t used to...and half an hour into the debut story he changes 
actor.

Looking back on it it`s not surprising it didn`t go to a full series and in 
retrospect I`m pleased it didn`t. If Dr Who still wasn`t on air I`d be sorry 
about it, thinking anything is better than nothing, but comparing the hour 
and a half of the movie with the first couple of episodes of Eccleston`s 
series...it`s safe to say good things come to those who wait.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
I believe McCoy's made the same observation. But he was hardly the
only out-of-place continuity reference - the thing was crammed with
them.

Phil
                                            
Charles
Some people like to argue.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
They're audios - mostly serviceable, but the character never grabbed
me.

My only exposure to Doctor 8 is the two

Rose was a good introduction to Eccleston, I thought - Tennant did
suffer from the fact that he too was asleep for most of the episode...
Never saw the first episodes for Baker or Troughton (or Hartnell, or
McCoy, or Colin Baker...).


And if this film hadn't carried the label Dr Who, you probably
wouldn't have heard of that either.


Well, I'd very much like to. Not because it had the same feel (though
it had much of the same *plot*), but because it was drivel.

 Hell the doctor even had

That was the previous Master story (End of Time). The last one was
even worse... :-(

  So why is it okay

It might be - but then I never praised either of the new series Master
stories (excluding Utopia, which was actually good). Again, though,
while the plot might have been basically the same, the feel wasn't -
the newer attempts took themselves less seriously, there was more
interaction between the characters that didn't come down to violence,
the violence there was was in typical cartoony Who style rather than
crashes and explosions all over the place, and the Doctor felt like
the centre of events rather than a slightly bewildered bit part with
an undefined personality. All of that I can relate to old Who much
better than a straight-laced action movie with an anonymous, and
curiously minor, 'central' character who had to keep vocally reminding
the audience he was an alien. Then there were the visuals - too much
effort went into making them look clean and state-of-the-art. Dr Who
has always looked a bit crummy; it's part of the charm, and with the
new, higher-budget series, it's presumably quite deliberate that they
can wheel out  a '70s tin dog prop or reuse a '60s pepperpot-monster
design with only minor tweaks, and they still look as though they
belong on the same screen as 21st Century CGI - a lot of effort goes
into making a high-budget show look as low-budget as modern Dr Who
does. And while it's true the new series has sometimes strayed into
the territory of relegating the Doctor to the companion's sidekick
(especially during Rose's years), it's rarely done so to the extreme
seen in the TV movie.


Okay, a caveat: in talking 'modern Who' I'm mostly talking 2005-2009.
2010, while superficially entertaining, was a major step down in most
regards, as I pointed out repeatedly during my reviews - plots that
reused situations again and again without actually going anywhere, and
lack of both characterisation and much interaction or dialogue in most
stories were major gripes. One of my favourite episodes of the year
was The Lodger (ep 11), which was entirely character-based, heavily
dialogue-driven, and featured almost no action.

On the other hand, 2010 *did* have a compelling Doctor in Matt Smith -
I mentioned several times over the year that he was the only reason to
continue watching. McGann never grabbed the attention; and if the
actor had the ability, he was never given the opportunity. His part
was minor (yet another story where he stayed in bed for half of it),
and the persona he was given bland.


"My own people"? I don't work for the BBC. Lots of BBC programming is
rubbish (and practically all British-made commercial programming) -
most of the good stuff is to be found on radio, and a fair proportion
of the better TV output started life as radio sitcoms or dramas that
were later adapted. I tend to avoid watching TV whatever country I'm
in, and wherever it was produced (though the last time I did watch any
in the UK, it was mostly repeats of Star Trek and The Simpsons...)

Phil
                                            
john
They're audios - mostly serviceable, but the character never grabbed
me.

My only exposure to Doctor 8 is the two

Rose was a good introduction to Eccleston, I thought - Tennant did
suffer from the fact that he too was asleep for most of the episode...
Never saw the first episodes for Baker or Troughton (or Hartnell, or
McCoy, or Colin Baker...).


And if this film hadn't carried the label Dr Who, you probably
wouldn't have heard of that either.


Well, I'd very much like to. Not because it had the same feel (though
it had much of the same *plot*), but because it was drivel.

Hell the doctor even had

That was the previous Master story (End of Time). The last one was
even worse... :-(

  So why is it okay

It might be - but then I never praised either of the new series Master
stories (excluding Utopia, which was actually good). Again, though,
while the plot might have been basically the same, the feel wasn't -
the newer attempts took themselves less seriously, there was more
interaction between the characters that didn't come down to violence,
the violence there was was in typical cartoony Who style rather than
crashes and explosions all over the place, and the Doctor felt like
the centre of events rather than a slightly bewildered bit part with
an undefined personality. All of that I can relate to old Who much
better than a straight-laced action movie with an anonymous, and
curiously minor, 'central' character who had to keep vocally reminding
the audience he was an alien. Then there were the visuals - too much
effort went into making them look clean and state-of-the-art. Dr Who
has always looked a bit crummy; it's part of the charm, and with the
new, higher-budget series, it's presumably quite deliberate that they
can wheel out  a '70s tin dog prop or reuse a '60s pepperpot-monster
design with only minor tweaks, and they still look as though they
belong on the same screen as 21st Century CGI - a lot of effort goes
into making a high-budget show look as low-budget as modern Dr Who
does. And while it's true the new series has sometimes strayed into
the territory of relegating the Doctor to the companion's sidekick
(especially during Rose's years), it's rarely done so to the extreme
seen in the TV movie.


Okay, a caveat: in talking 'modern Who' I'm mostly talking 2005-2009.
2010, while superficially entertaining, was a major step down in most
regards, as I pointed out repeatedly during my reviews - plots that
reused situations again and again without actually going anywhere, and
lack of both characterisation and much interaction or dialogue in most
stories were major gripes. One of my favourite episodes of the year
was The Lodger (ep 11), which was entirely character-based, heavily
dialogue-driven, and featured almost no action.



***It was also ripped off one of the stories in "Sapphire & Steel", which 
I'm just rewatching... the first time I've seen it since it's original 
broadcast in about 1980.  It's actually stood the test of time, too, and is 
creepily effective... although, when it comes to plot resolutions, they seem 
to pull rabbits in hats out of their arse...***




On the other hand, 2010 *did* have a compelling Doctor in Matt Smith -
I mentioned several times over the year that he was the only reason to
continue watching. McGann never grabbed the attention; and if the
actor had the ability, he was never given the opportunity. His part
was minor (yet another story where he stayed in bed for half of it),
and the persona he was given bland.


"My own people"? I don't work for the BBC. Lots of BBC programming is
rubbish (and practically all British-made commercial programming) -
most of the good stuff is to be found on radio, and a fair proportion
of the better TV output started life as radio sitcoms or dramas that
were later adapted. I tend to avoid watching TV whatever country I'm
in, and wherever it was produced (though the last time I did watch any
in the UK, it was mostly repeats of Star Trek and The Simpsons...)

Phil
                                            
SFTV_troy
I thought the 8th Doctor was great.  His movie was the first new stuff
I'd seen since the 70s (3rd and 4th doctor).   I went in expecting
disappointment, but was pleased with how Doctor 8 handled himself.

Maybe I'll try the audios but doubtful.  I listened to Doctor 2 on
audio (because the video was lost), and it's hard to follow the story
or like the character without the visuals.




Nope.  Dull.  The 96 movie was sooooo much better.  I watched it twice
thinking maybe a second viewing would help, but instead I immediately
deleted it off my drive.  Yawn.



Wow.  Well I'll say that you're not missing much.  Hartnell had a good
first episode, especially since it was the launch for the whole show,
but the rest?  Blah.






I'm not seeing that.  In the movie the companion stumbles around with
no clue what's going on, while the 8th Doctor is firmly in charge.  In
fact he had more of his faculties "together" than previous doctors
after they regenerated.  Doctor 2 acted like a blithering idiot.
Doctor 4 - same.  Doctor 5 slept in a box.  Doctor 6 acted like an
escapee from a nuthouse.  And Doctor 7 had a weird fascination for
spoons.

Yep.  I think Doctor's 8 first episode was probably the best post-
regeneration/ first episode of any of the doctors.
                                            
Soze
The McGann are audios are made to be listened to...the 60`s TV stories were 
made to be watched. It`s not at all difficult to follow a radio play in the 
way it can be listening to the soundtrack to an old TV series.


I`m still gobsmacked you`re writing off Power of the Daleks. One of the best 
stories in the show`s history.


McGann was instantly in charge because he only had an hour. Quite often, 
after a regeneration the show has the Doctor blithering about whilst the 
companions take centre stage...this is because the audience are already 
familiar with the companions in a way they`re not with the new Doctor. That 
said I was glad Smith didn`t do too much of this ( in comparison to Tennant 
anyway ).
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
From what I remember, he was asleep for the best part of quarter of
the episode and spent much of the rest in a daze while he worked out
who he was - with the exception of one bike chase - before suddenly
coming to the fore just in time for the final showdown.

Phil
                                            
Michael
I'm amazed that he's ignoring the 4th and 3rd Doctor.
                                            
Soze
Well, in fairness both the 3rd and 4th Doctor`s had an episode each or so 
where they were blithering idiots. Neither story really got going until part 
2. But both are perfectly enjoyable stories , infinitely better than the 
TVM.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
That you for the fact.
                                            
Charles
On one level stuff happens and discussing it is a learning opportunity. In
other ways people can scrub around this stuff in a never ending circle and
never move on.

Doing anything well is hard which I've found helps explain why fanbois lack
foresight and don't have much to add on technical issues. Focus groups are
pretty much the same.

I'm not being judgemental here. It  just depends which side of the fence 
you're sitting on. How much you're prepared to invest. Whether you want to 
work at it or just use it as a conversational toy.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
I loved the movie.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Agruments:

1) Was it competing or committing suicide?

2) Were the North American numbers skewed to a point?
                                            
SFTV_troy
I have no idea what question 1 means.  Committing suicide because it
scored higher than other SFTV series?

And number 2 is not applicable.  If Nielsen says 5.5% of the US was
watching that week (versus 4.5% for Voyager and 3.2% for Babylon5)
then that's the official number used by the television studios and
advertisers.
.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't turned on a TV since getting here.
I have the perfect reason not to watch television: knowing that
whatever I turn on I'll be landed with American TV...), but weren't
those three shows aired on different networks? With Voyager being the
flagship show for a small network that needed those kinds of viewing
figures? I thought Fox was the US's largest TV network - 5.5 million
might be impressive for a far smaller network, but what would be
relevant to schedulers and advertisers isn't hiow smaller networks are
doing so much as how much better Fox's own viewing figures might be
showing something else instead.

Phil
                                            
The
I would never dare correct anyone seriously, and cannot claim anyone's 
opinion is wrong.

However, I would point out the following "American" television shows in 
production as of 2010 that can, occasionally, provoke thought, laughter, and 
the odd erection or two.

Castle.

Fringe.

-Wraith
Spent.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Ending a sentence with an ellipsis (...) tends to be a sign that I'm
making an ironic or otherwise lighthearted comment - though I wouldn't
have thought it necessary to flag up the fact that the above was a
joke. Seemingly there are a bunch of thin-skinned Americans on this
thread who are actually used to hearing that sort of thing said
seriously (or possibly they just imagine it's to be taken seriously
when other people say it too).

Never heard of Castle or seen Fringe though.

Phil
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
That's the Wraith!
                                            
The
Yes.

Yes it is.

3 way with Beckett, Castle's Mum and Daughter would be fantastic.

They're all smokin hot.

Let's throw Ryan in there too.  I'd hit it.

I admit it.

-Wraith
Swings any way he can
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
We know!
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Fringe is so weird it makes Doctor Who look logical.
                                            
john
Bullshit!

You think this for the same reason you think "Midnight" is (in your words) 
'pantomime': you're just too stupid to understand it...
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
You must drink cyanide for breakfast troll john smith.
                                            
powrwrap
I've seen one episode of Castle. The premise is so absurd it is
laughable. A mystery/detective novelist tags along with a police
detective and helps her solve murders. (She's apparently so stupid
that she needs a writer to point out obvious clues to her. "This was
just like in my novel __________________")

IMO, any story that relies on a writer being a main character (i.e.
75% of Stephen King's novels) are pathetic.
                                            
Dano
Dr. Who and sci-fi crossposts deleted...

IMO it's quite entertaining.  Is this any worse than the other crap foisted 
on us in terms of police procedurals?  Why NOT take a playful run at the 
genre.  It's a character driven mystery that doesn't take itself too 
seriously.  Funnier than 90% of the sitcoms that air these days, yet they 
have interesting mysteries to solve mixed in.  Maybe if you gave it more 
than a cursory viewing...no doubt going in with a negative attitude that you 
will hate it...and kept an open mind...you might find it enjoyable and the 
characters actually likable.  A nice touch is the two male detectives that 
work with the leads are funny while still being competent.  They grow on 
you.  I admit I'm a fan of Fillion to begin with and this is the perfect 
vehicle for his playful personality.  I wonder if you don't take yourself 
just a bit too seriously.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Unlike many, I quite enjoyed The Unicorn and the Wasp, but I don't
think it's an idea that would sustain a series - plus it was a very
lighthearted episode. Is Castle intended to be comic?


Mmost shows that rely on policemen being main characters are pathetic.

Phil
                                            
Dano
I don't know if "comic" is how I would put it.  It has a very nice light 
hearted tone and a sense of humor.  You either like that...or not.  And yes. 
Every episode has a strong element of humor.  Fillion's character is very 
funny and a good detective in his own right.  That's why the cops and 
specifically Beckett not only tolerate his goofy charm, but have grown 
dependent on him, even if they don't always admit it.


Anyone that watches such shows and has that attitude are rather silly and 
pathetic really IMO.   Why would you watch?  I just don't understand that. 
Not enough entertainment choices?

What is the connection to sci-fi and Dr. Who may I ask?  Nathan Fillion?

So shows about aliens and space travel and monsters aren't silly?  But 
mysteries and cops are?  Why can't people have their preferences without 
having those choices mocked.  I like SOME sci-fi...SOME comedy...SOME cop 
shows.  I don't particularly like medical shows, serious or not.  My 
solution?  I don't watch those or denigrate their viewers taste.

BTW...I AM a pretty big sci-fi fan myself.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Years ago I saw odd bits of a US series called Numb3rs - sounds much
the same thing, just with a writer rather than a mathematician in the
consultant role.


Probably. I don't watch them. Except for sci-fi, which I'll usually
give a try, I don't select shows to watch based on premise, let alone
the job description of the protagonist - if a cop show seems good,
like Life on Mars, I'll watch, but not by virtue of it being a cop
show. I'd never expected to enjoy a medical drama (even a medical
comedy-drama), and was rather surprised that House became must-watch
viewing for a while.

It's not policemen/doctors or whatever that are necessarily inherently
dull - it's the temptation networks succumb to to make every other
show a clone of previous cop/medical shows, because that's what the
public likes for whatever reason. Even shows based on source material
in which other professions come to the fore - e.g. Flashforward - are
often televised in a way that replaces the protagonists with
knuckleheaded gunslingers.

I suppose the consultant angle (shows like Numb3rs, Medium, and from
what you say Castle) has been settled on because the networks realise
that their cop archetypes are too boring to carry a show by
themselves. Ironically, Flashforward, a show based on a novel about
scientists that put the FBI in the protagonists' role,brought the
scientist characters in as consultants, and those characters were the
only ones with any trace of personality or deviation from the standard
"family problems and an addiction problem = personality" (a stereotype
which seems to dog cops whatever show they're in - family trouble was
Matt Parkman's defining trait in Heroes, which just replaced the
standard boozing trope with an addiction to his power. That was a more
imaginative take than most).

  Why would you watch?  I just don't understand that.

No idea -someone just mentioned Castle.


I didn't say shows about cops were silly - I said they were mostly
bad. As above, the characters rarely deviate from tired cliches, and
the very nature of the few bits of police work that involve action
lends itself to telling the same story again and again.

Phil
                                            
questerinfionlinenet
Actually, Castle was not presented as a consultant.  He was a personal
friend of the Mayor and in need of inspiration for his novels.  So he
got the Mayor to order the dectectives that he be allowed to tag along
on their cases.  They were quite against this, but helpless to prevent
it.  Eventually he showed that he could provide significant insights
and essentially became part of the team, but in the beginning he was
considered a nuisance rather than a consultant.

This is not ENTIRELY out of line with reality.  There are a number of
law enforcement agencies where members of the public can sign up for a
"Ride Along" for a shift.  Of course, those who do are supposed to
stay in the police car, keep out of trouble and just watch.  Tromping
around in crime scenes and participating in solving cases is NOT in
the description of a Ride Along.  The Mayor just extended this (to a
rediculous point, granted).   

I like the show, but not because of its brilliant detective work.
Nathan Fillion brings charm to his role as Castle, he has good
chemistry with the attractive Detective Beckett, there are supporting
characters (such as his mother) that are quirky but not outrageous,
and they work in some humor without doing so much as to seem horribly
out of place.
                                            
The
(edit for reply)

You said everything I wanted to.  Spot on!

Love the show.

And Castle's Mum is completely HOT

-Wraith
                                            
Adam
You know, I find Stana Katic very inspiring as well. I really need to
dramatically up my campaign donations.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
That's your perrogative.
                                            
Anim8rFSK
Be sure to check her out as the sexy vampire in the third LIBRARIAN 
movie.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
UGH!
                                            
Adam
Check her out, huh? So that's make campaign contributions and renew my
libary card.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
LOL!
                                            
Dano
Nothing like it at all.  I liked that one as well.  The hook to that one was 
the solving of crimes through advanced mathematics.  Though it also had a 
sense of humor, it was much more serious.


I was referring to the crossposting to disparate newsgroups.


Bad.  Okay.  You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  Just try to 
understand that's all it is.  I watch Dr. Who for example...but I really 
don't think it's exactly "great art".  A sometimes clever diversion that is 
vastly over-rated.  But of course it could always be said it's "silly".  Not 
that there's anything wrong with that.  <ducking>

I don't care that a show is called a "cop show" and judge it on that basis. 
Many consider The Wire a cop show.  They are mistaken IMO.  But I feel it 
just might be the finest TV show ever made.  A true work of art.  Seriously. 
If you duck it because it's a "cop show", you're really cheating yourself. 
IMO of course.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
*shrug* I never check which groups posts come from.


I always get confused when people say things like that. Who else's
opinion do they expect I'd be putting forward?

  I watch Dr. Who for example...but I really

Silly is good. Entertaining is good. But when the fundamental point of
watching TV drama is to pass the time in an entertaining way, boring
is not good. I forget the exact line Fry used in Futurama, but it
always seemed to me to sum up the approach these mass-produced cop/
medical/lawyer dramas take (the episode itself was satirising a legal
drama) - audiences don't want the unexpected or the novel, because it
leaves them uncertain and confused. They just want more of the same.
That's not what I turn on the TV for, on the rare occasions that I do.


As I said, I've found myself watching shows in all genres that turn
out to be unexpectedly good. However, networks worldwide are so
saturated with cop shows (homegrown or imported) that it's hard to
avoid exposure to them while waiting for an interesting programme to
start, or when trailers come on, or when other people in the house
turn them on while you're in the room. It took one trailer for House
to get me watching that show; yet all the exposure to these various
cop show clones hasn't piqued my interest sufficiently for me to add
them to my viewing schedule, whether the brand name for the latest
clone is CSI, NCIS, Medium, Bones or whatever - and when the same cop
show tropes show up in other shows (e.g. Flashforward) they're almost
invariably dull and cliched (although I actually found Parkman one of
the better reasons to watch Heroes). I did, after all, say that *most*
cop shows are bad, not that they *all* are. House has clever dialogue
and entertaining characters to compensate for the fact that it's
otherwise a fairly standard one-plot show; I'm not aware of any cop
show (other than Life on Mars) about which the same can be said.

Phil
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Touche!
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Point well taken
                                            
SFTV_troy
True.  But Sliders was on FOX and Doctor Who scored 1 point higher
than it.  And yet FOX renewed Sliders was renewed but not Doctor Who.
.


Note the correction.  And in 1996 FOX was #4 with only ten years on
air.  They only got half as many viewers as the top 3 networks.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Well, that certainly shows they weren't driven by concerns for quality
(not that the TVM was better than Sliders, just that Sliders was so
dire it should never have been allowed a second episode, let alone
extra seasons).


Okay. But the other networks airing SF weren't among the top three,
right?

Phil
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
I saw all of the McCoy Era.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Yes john smith that is your natural ether.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Well how many letter went to the BBC over the OBJECTION of cancellation?
                                            
SFTV_troy
What TV network ever is?  PBS is the only US network that doesn't
measure the number of viewers... all the rest do.  If a show doesn't
draw viewers, it gets canned, even if it's a quality production.

I don't know how it works in the UK market, but I've noticed the BBC
tracks viewers too.  If the New Doctor Who suddenly dropped to 1
million eyes, how long do you think it would last?  It too would get
canceled despite being a quality show.




Ouch.  Are you sure you saw the same Sliders I did?  I thought the
Sliders "alternate history" concept was cool, testing out ideas like
"what if the US was still part of the UK Empire" plus some humor too.

Granted Sliders' turned to ___ after the first 20 episodes, but those
early episodes were excellent.  At the time it was the only show I
watched "live" rather than taping and watching later.





NBC had SF (earth2 and seaquest) and was #1.  ABC had SF and was #2.
FOX was a distant #4.

UPN/WB/PTEN were new networks that eventually went bankrupt.   Only
the Top 4 managed to survive the 2000 dot-com crash and economic
recession.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
It got cancelled at 2 million (well, 4 million eyes - unless most
people were watching with one eye closed!) last time... Though most
would dispute that it had been a quality show at the time! Oh no, it's
not a uniquely American phenomenon by any means, nor is it anything
new to the BBC (Dr Who was cancelled in 1989 due mainly to poor
viewing figures; Blackadder was almost canned after its first year in
the mid-80s for the same reason).


Remake of the Time Tunnel only with alternate universes instead of
historical periods, and 'blessed' with the talents of John Rhys
Davies, an actor so bad that his best roles have been narrating
documentaries (though I admit even his hamminess wasn't *too* groan-
inducing in The Two Towers)? Yep. It was about the only SF show I saw
(this being in the days before Stargate and Flash Gordon remakes) that
I'd say was *worse* than The Time Tunnel.

  I thought the

That was the worst episode of the few I managed to struggle through -
I assumed at the time it was meant as a joke episode (however bad the
jokes), though I know people who watched it who thought it was
intended to be taken seriously by writers who actually thought that
might be a plausible alternate history.


Okay, if that episode was a highlight I not only stand by my earlier
comment, I may actually rank the show below the Flash Gordon remake.

Phil
                                            
john
It got cancelled at 2 million (well, 4 million eyes - unless most
people were watching with one eye closed!) last time... Though most
would dispute that it had been a quality show at the time! Oh no, it's
not a uniquely American phenomenon by any means, nor is it anything
new to the BBC (Dr Who was cancelled in 1989 due mainly to poor
viewing figures; Blackadder was almost canned after its first year in
the mid-80s for the same reason).


Remake of the Time Tunnel only with alternate universes instead of
historical periods, and 'blessed' with the talents of John Rhys
Davies, an actor so bad that his best roles have been narrating
documentaries (though I admit even his hamminess wasn't *too* groan-
inducing in The Two Towers)? Yep. It was about the only SF show I saw
(this being in the days before Stargate and Flash Gordon remakes) that
I'd say was *worse* than The Time Tunnel.

  I thought the

That was the worst episode of the few I managed to struggle through -
I assumed at the time it was meant as a joke episode (however bad the
jokes), though I know people who watched it who thought it was
intended to be taken seriously by writers who actually thought that
might be a plausible alternate history.


Okay, if that episode was a highlight I not only stand by my earlier
comment, I may actually rank the show below the Flash Gordon remake.

Phil



...which you said you actually watched all the way through!  You both sound 
like gluttons for punishment!  (Although, from the little I saw of both of 
them, "Sliders" at least had better production values...)
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
I watched, I think, half a dozen episodes of Flash Gordon. I got
through more of Sliders, but probably not a full season. Something has
to be especially bad for me not to give it at least a year, especially
since I quite enjoy bad sci-fi shows - for me to turn off something
has to be both bad *and* dull, and/or so dire it's past 'so bad it's
funny' and out the other side. I think only Stargate has been so
terrible I haven't managed to make it through an entire episode after
several attempts.

Phil
                                            
powrwrap
So you missed the McCoy era too, huh?
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
I found the McCoy era funny - but then I'm told I've seen mostly its
better episodes.

Phil
                                            
pbowlesaolcom

                                            
SFTV_troy
You don't really think Time Tunnel was original do you?  No.  If
Sliders copied anything, it was probably the pulp novels from the
1920s and 30s..... which I don't consider a flaw.  Most of
Shakespeare's work was simply remakes of previous plays by other
authors.  There's no such thing as an original idea.




Wow.  Harsh.  What about his role in the Untouchables?  Or War and
Remembrance?



Well then you probably wouldn't like Harry Turtledove's extremely
popular Civil War series.  (The South doesn't win the war, but it ends
in a stalemate, so that the US is split in half.)  Or the novel
Fatherland about Hitler developing a nuke, and therefore World War 2
evolved into a Cold War between US/UK and Greater Germany.

So what DO you enjoy?
                                            
john
You don't really think Time Tunnel was original do you?  No.  If
Sliders copied anything, it was probably the pulp novels from the
1920s and 30s..... which I don't consider a flaw.  Most of
Shakespeare's work was simply remakes of previous plays by other
authors.  There's no such thing as an original idea.



***Yes there is.  What about dark matter and dark energy?***





Wow.  Harsh.  What about his role in the Untouchables?  Or War and
Remembrance?



Well then you probably wouldn't like Harry Turtledove's extremely
popular Civil War series.  (The South doesn't win the war, but it ends
in a stalemate, so that the US is split in half.)  Or the novel
Fatherland about Hitler developing a nuke, and therefore World War 2
evolved into a Cold War between US/UK and Greater Germany.

So what DO you enjoy?
                                            
Charles
I liked Sliders. It was what it was. The problems really started when the
execs aimed it at a younger demographic and messed around with the character
played by John Rhys Davies. That led to a few heated bust ups behind the
scenes.

He did rather well in Shogun and made the role his own.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
No, but there are good ideas and bad ideas. Copying the bad ones (or
the badly-executed ones) is usually not a good thing. And copying the
good ones badly is never a good thing.


Haven't seen the former, or heard of the latter. Granted, I should
have said "his best roles of those I know" - which include Indiana
Jones, Sliders, Star Trek: Voyager and The Lord of the Rings. At his
best in any of them he was only tolerable. Admittedly it probably
didn't help that in nearly every case he was called upon to put on
foreign accents he was extremely bad at. I'd be surprised if he
manifested unsuspected talent in roles I haven't seen, but even if he
did, I've seen Sliders and he exhibited no trace whatsoever of any
talent there.


You misunderstand - I like alternate history as a concept, but as
above a good idea done badly is not a good thing (in fact it's worse
than a crap idea done badly, because you can get frustrated at the
wasted potential). That US/UK episode, for instance, was a bunch of
silly cliches randomly thrown together (including a prince playing at
being James Bond, if I remember), and the alternate universe idea (as
in other Sliders episodes) wasn't used to explore any logical concept
of an alternate timeline, but just as an excuse to do something silly
that didn't really happen. The other examples you mention use a
specific premise and explore its consequences - something Sliders
didn't attempt.


By and large, not TV...

Phil
                                            
SFTV_troy
But Sliders was a fun show.  Like when they had Judge Wopner of the
Communist People's Court appear on the first episode.  Hilarious.  I
don't think it falls into your "bad idea" category which is why I
rewatched the whole show three times now (original run, reruns, and
now hulu).  It was a great show until FOX destroyed it in episode 301.

Also it appears you like Time Tunnel but when I tried to watch the
reruns on Sci-Fi Channel, I was bored to tears.  I like the idea, same
I liked Quantum Leap's similar theme, but TT had a dull execution.




Go watch the Untouchables.  It's on hulu.com or isohunt.com - I think
it will change your mind about Mr. Davies.





No.   It was basically a modified clone of the Robin Hood story, which
if I recall correctly was a British idea.  A Sheriff has taken-over
the US, he tries to kill the Prince, and the Sliders come-in to block
the assassination.  Then the Sheriff gets arrested.  There's no Bond
or other cliches.  You are mis-remembering.

Speaking of silly cliches, ever notice almost every time an American
appears on Doctor Who, he talks loud, acts bossy, and makes dumb
decisions?  Also the accent is wrong.  But I don't let such things
bother me (as you apparently do).
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
That may be the difference - see my reply to John. It was exactly the
problem that I *didn't* find Sliders fun. I rather liked The Lost
World - it was atrocious, with terrible dialogue, appallingly cliched
characters and dismal acting, but I found it fun to watch. I found
Sliders both bad and boring.


Oh no, I very much don't like Time Tunnel. I brought it up precisely
as an example of the bad idea Sliders copied - badly.


Do I? I wasn't bothered by the overuse of British stereotypes in the
Sliders episode (whether James Bond or Robin Hood), but by the
preposterous nature of the scenario and the parochial American tub-
thumping it entailed (e.g. that if the American Revolution hadn't
happened, modern democracy would never have developed). If the
scenario had had, say, a Spanish monarch and lots of Spanish
stereotypes it would still have been a terrible story.

Phil
                                            
Charles
Design and marketing are funny in that reviews and ratings can shove you up
your own ass if you don't watch it. Yes, it's important to keep an eye on
things but if you get lucky (or unlucky) then success (or unadulterated
shit) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some shows like BSG benefit from exec decisions like BSG developing a more
mysterious and spiritual line. Sliders was great until the execs started
chasing the younger demographic, and the show flip-flopped and went downhill
from there. Caveat emptor.

Can't really comment on the US market but the UK market suffered a massive
reduction in expensive and older workers and a massive influx of younger
workers, as costs were cut and the market expanded like crazy. This led to a
net fall in the IQ of broadcasting. Experience matters.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Question one has to deal with was DW:TWM up against stiff competition
in that Time Slot in 1996?

Q2 has to deal with decision maker based on umbers and not on rationality.
                                            
SFTV_troy
I don't see how it's relevant.  Whether it had no competition, or
aired against the Super Bowl, it doesn't change the basic fact the
5.5% of America was watching - which is an above average number for an
SFTV show (higher than other network shows like B5, VOY, S:A&B, and
Sliders).
.


Still no clue what your question means.  Sorry.
:-)
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
It was against stiff competition.


Some people in one country (Canada) did see the movie a day or 2 earlier.
                                            
SFTV_troy
P.S.

I just noticed that last night's episode of Glee scored 5.5% too, and
it's considered a major hit by FOX.  What a difference one decade can
make in how the television market works.
                                            
powrwrap
Well, 14 years. The TV landscape has changed. The number of cable
subscribers has increased. Satellite TV is more mainstream and readily
available. TV shows can be watched on the internet. There are easily
programmed DVR's. People can download torrents. There are tons more
viewing options. You cannot directly compare a 5.5 rating in 1996 with
a 5.5 rating in 2010. I would say the 5.5 rating in 2010 is much
better.

Ultimately, it depends on the demographic of the viewers and how much
money the network can charge for commercial time.
                                            
SFTV_troy
Has it?  I thought it was about 75% of homes had cable/satellite in
1998, and is still true today.





Major change.


True.  Just as we'll probably never see a SFTV show get 12% like Sttar
Trek TNG averaged in 1990.  Those days are long gone.
                                            
The
Ah yes.  I loved those days.

I just can't say the title of the show without going into Announcer Voice 
and bellowing,

"Staaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Trek... 
thenextgeneration"

-Wraith
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
HA! HA! HA!
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Multiple cable stations and now HDTV.
                                            
SFTV_troy
Again:  I don't see how it's relevant.  Even if that's true (and
nobody's proved it was), the 8th Doctor's first TV episode still
scored above-average ratings/viewership in the US.  (Higher than other
network SF shows like B5, VOY, S:A&B, and Sliders.)
.


Yeah okay.  But as I mentioned before FOX is a US network and doesn't
care if Canadians watch their shows or not.  Even if half of Canada
had watched the 1996 Doctor Who, FOX would have still canned it
because all they care about is the 50 states.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Therefore what was the rationale for Fox not to be a partner in Doctor Who?
                                            
SFTV_troy
They hate sci-fi.  Same reason they canceled VR5 and Space A&B and
Strange Luck and Firefly and.....  They were even stupid enough to
cancel X-Files after season one (it averaged 6% of the audience), but
then decided at the last minute to revive it.  It eventually became a
huge hit.
                                            
powrwrap
The final, final episode ever of Roseanne is not stiff competition?
That show was typically in the top five for ratings for years. The
lead in to that show was the season finale of Home Improvement. That's
not stiff competition? The NBA basketball playoffs? Fraiser?

You seem to have all a source for TV ratings. Look up these shows and
tell us how they did in the ratings in 1996.
                                            
SFTV_troy
No especially since Roseanne's final episode was in 1997.  Ooops.
.


Wrong again.  May 14 is when Doctor Who aired.  The NBA finals did not
start until May 18.
.


And wrong again.  May 21 was the finale.


And again.  Finale was May 21 too.  Doctor Who didn't go up against
any of these shows.  You see what I mean about "myths"?  All of these
explanations have grown-up over the years, but they simply - are - not
- true.  They are urban legends.  Myths.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
So do I.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Up and coming.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
I prefer BBC news.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
PBS at the time was the BBC partner in the 20th Century.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
IT did well in the UK.

outside is anyone's guess.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Not a good idea, Canada would also get isolated.
                                            
powrwrap
Yep, you're right.



Did I say NBA Finals? I said NBA playoffs.




Home Improvement is on Tuesday nights and would have been opposite the
TV Movie.



 And again.  Finale was May 21 too.  Doctor Who didn't go up against

Fraiser is also on Tuesday nights.



OK, Fraiser, Home Improvement and Roseanne were all the penultimate
episodes of the 1995-1996 TV season, not season finales. Along with
the NBA playoffs, I'd still call that stiff competition.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Still tough competition!
                                            
SFTV_troy
True you did.  My error.  But it doesn't matter.  The people playing
on May 14 were two minor teams of no significance, and would not have
detracted from Doctor Who's national audience, because nobody would
have cared.




Irrelevant.  It was an average episode of little importance.  You made
a false claim.  Probably an error, but now you refuse to admit your
error.

The fact of the matter is Doctor Who faced these shows.  It scored
ABOVE AVERAGE compared to other sci-fi shows.  To hear persons say a
show "did poorly" year-after-year, when it actually scored above
average is frustrating.

Off-topic:

And frankly, I also get tired of hearing Europeans say (here, on
youtube, on IMDb.com) that "Americans produce nothing but shit".  Shit
cars, shit TV, and shit music.  If you hate our stuff so much, tear up
the Atlantic internet cables, and just pretend the US doesn't exist.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Shit's shit wherever it comes from - I don't know why people get hung
up on nationalities - there was a thread here where a couple of
posters decided that Americans make better TV than the British.
Nonsense generalisations whichever way round it is; most of the few
non-documentaries I watched in the UK were American dramas and The
Simpsons, but equally America is notoriously home to "World's Xiest X"
list shows ("World's Creepiest Places I think it was in a cafe I
visited recently), dumbed-down wildlife documentaries with names like
"Built for the Kill", and laughable Sci-fi Channel movies with names
like "Komodo vs. Cobra". For its part, the same British channel that
produced Being Human routinely airs dreadful pop appeal freak shows
with names like "Freaky Eaters"; Channel 4 has a record of producing
some superb documentaries - but also the British incarnation of what
may very well be the worst show in the history of television, Big
Brother.

Similarly, the US can present (as one poster harped on about) shows
with production values as high as those in Battlestar Galactica,
strong scripts, good characterisation and all the rest. But at the
same time it can continue to roll out long-running tripe like
Stargate, complete with effects that would embarrass producers of
modern Dr Who. And the less said about *those* scripts the better...
Which is why "Country X vs. Country Y" arguments always use a small
number of selective examples to make their case. Back on topic
(vaguely) things like Sliders aren't crap because they're American,
they're crap because they're just crap. The Who TV movie wouldn't be
any more or less crap by virtue of its American links than its British
ones.

As for music, I can't imagine anyone who knows anything about music
could seriously suggest either that America doesn't produce good
music, or that music quality can be meaningfully divided along
national lines - after all, the best European music is based on
American styles such as blues, rock and country.

Phil
                                            
powrwrap
I suppose you're right again. Doctor Who traditionally attracts female
viewers. The fact that male viewers might be watching the semi-finals
of the NBA playoffs wouldn't affect the TV Movie's ratings in the
least especially considering nobody cared about Michael Jordan and the
Chicago Bulls.



Yeah, you're right again. That silly Home Improvement show was only
the top rated show in the U.S. in 1994. I'm sure they had zero viewers
in 1996. When the season finale was aired a week after the TV movie it
was #7 in the U.S. with 15.4 million viewers. So of course a week
earlier it would have posed no competition to the TV movie.

Fraiser was #11 in the ratings for the 1995-1996 season, with an
average of 13 million viewers. Again, I've got to defer to your
incredible insight when you say the May 14th episode of Fraiser was of
little importance. Bah--just 13M viewers.

Roseanne was #16 in ratings 1995-1996 and I'm sure the May 14th
episode where Dan suffers a heart attack and is rushed to hospital
would be of little interest to the show's fan base.



The TV Movie did poorly on the night it was broadcast. While it may
have done better than other sci-fi shows it just didn't muster enough
viewers to warrant a U.S. series. Also, your thread title is wrong on
both counts. Dr. Who did not do well, and it wasn't canceled.




Well, we can agree on that!
                                            
Soze
From the outside the US can come across as very insular, possibly a bit 
ignorant of what`s going on in the world around them. That`s probably where 
these comments come from and they`re usually made by fucktards who can`t 
differentiate between a country and a person. I`m sure idiots in the US have 
similar general negative thoughts about us. I prefer to take each person as 
they come, irrespective of where they were born. Much of my favourite 
entertainment comes from across the pond...an awful lot of crap comes over 
as well but that`s the percentages for you. It`s not as if we`ve never made 
shit here in Europe.
                                            
Alun
@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.

From the inside the US looks very insular, especially if you aren't an 
American. US media take the view that the world revolves around America, 
and believe that no-one is interested in foreign news, and everyone who 
lives here in the US gets stuck with that. I'm sure that many who were 
born here accept this situation as normal, so consequently they actually 
are insular. The only caveat is that it's not their fault. Blame it on 
the media.
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Curiously, of course, CNN is one of the best sources out there for
world news, and the most widely-read magazines focusing on the world
at large - Time and National Geographic - are both American. The
media's there within the US for people who want it.

My own recent experience, as I mentioned, is that the the US is
ridiculously badly set-up to accommodate 'aliens' in every
admistrative sense. The house/apartmental rental system, complete with
credit checks that take days or weeks, can't readily make allowances
for people new to the country needing rapid temporary accommodation;
you can't open a bank account without a social security number - which
you can't get without accommodation to send it to... - or a US phone
number. Getting a US phone is awkward without ... a bank account (I
even had difficulty using a non-US passport as a form of ID when
getting a phone, the only time in my life I can recall a US passport
being insufficient as a form of ID) - oh, and never mind that the
available plans make so little provision for calling outside the US
that no details on costs are readily available. I imagine that if I
wasn't working for an international organisation I'd run into
bureaucratic issues there too resulting from a complete inability to
prepare for the possibility that people from other countries might
actually come to the US (at least as anything other than poor
unemployed border-jumpers).

Phil
                                            
questerinfionlinenet
From the inside the US looks very insular, especially if you aren't an 

While this seems a reasonable evaluation of the US media, especially
with Cable/Satelite TV we have the choice of several alternatives.  I
often find that a foreign perspective is useful to my own
understanding of what's happening in the world.  So I use news
programs from Great Britain, Germany, Russia and even the far east to
supplement what I see presented on US news programs and newspapers.
(And even those just receiving Over-The-Air broadcasts often have
access to the BBC news via our PBS stations.)  

I imagine that I'm in a rather small minority that is actually taking
ADVANTAGE of this easy access to foreign news programs - but it's
available for a large percentage of the population if they want to see
it.  (And of course, the Internet gives easy access to foreign news
sources as well.)
                                            
Charles
The stereotype American is a xenophobic brand whore but the stereotype
British lack confidence and social skills. Vested interests play up to or
reinforce that but travel and globalisation has helped redress the balance
to some degree. Other countries have their stereotypes and the "game" is
still playing out but opportunities for individual improvement and new
partnerships do exist. No need to let the establishment or terrorists have 
it all their own way, eh?
                                            
Oliver
Charles E Hardwidge, Japan in 1605 under Tokugawa is NOT REMOTELY
comparable to England in 2008 under Brown, YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT!

Charles E Hardwidge, Gordon Brown has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with
Ieyasu Tokugawa or Zen Buddhism, YOU BAT-SHIT FUCKING INSANE TROLL!

YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT!  YOU BAT-SHIT FUCKING INSANE TROLL!
                                            
pbowlesaolcom
Do I detect a subtle hint that you don't like Charles very much?

Phil
                                            
Monsieur
Sounds more like he's madly in love.  I wish somebody could have such
passion about me.
                                            
Ignis
Be careful what you wish for.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
We know.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Who can like Chrles the Woodchuck Hardwedge?
                                            
powrwrap
Where, oh where, is that Sigmund Freud poster when you need him?
                                            
Charles
This is orthogonal to this discussion but Knights of the Old Republic 3
never happened. The game was mostly done, ran in to production difficulties,
and got canned. I got over it.

Then they made POS 'The Force Unleashed'. Go figure.

I'm British and have pretty much said Britain stinks and most of its TV
output is shit as well. And you've probably missed that whole thing where
I've said US shows do a lot of things better. So much so that 99% of my
media input is American.

The upcoming new shows look like a POS and there's some serious shark
jumping in there but that's another topic.

Dude. Calm the fuck down.
                                            
Stephen
Average Tuesday night figures tend to give Fox 11% of the audience share. 
They were aiming for 15%. 18% would have guaeanteed another movie or even a 
series.

The competition on the night included a first-run episode of Frasier and a 
significant episode of Roseanne. In the event, Dr Who grabbed 5.5 million 
viewers. 75th most watched programme of the week. But only 9% of of that 
night's audience.

The choice was between Dr Who and Sliders. So Fox went with Sliders.
                                            
SFTV_troy
Share yes but FOX's average *rating* in 1995-96 was only 5.8%.  Doctor
Who was all but tied with that number.



true.


false.  It was just an average ordinary episode of Roseanne - nothing
special.


false.  It had 13 million US viewers.


This could be true, but I have no idea because I don't have a ranking
chart.  If true that's still higher ranked than any other sci-fi show
at the time.  (Voyager used to hover around 90 or 100.)
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
Sounds right.  As I said talk about  a skew.
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
That you for quoting me.
                                            
Charles
Putting Blake's 7 up against Coronation Street was a dud move. Women would
put up with any old shit but that time slot was sacrosanct. Think husband's
fishing trip on Sunday morning and you're in the zone.

Heart of the Matter got shipped to the Sunday night death slot before
getting axed. Not sure it's really a death slot but that's how these things
seem to work out.

More recently Fox did everything the could to promote 'Terminator: The Sarah
Connor Chronicles' and it had a great lead-in. Ultimately, it got axed
because the (now fired) exec had a woody for Joss Whedon (and Dollhouse
later got axed).
                                            
Ignis
Yes Officer.

<mind the gap>
                                            
doctordoctornl2kabca
I doubt john smith qualifies for duty.