The main thing I found troubling was during the voice over, just before the show started when the announcer said that Fox was presenting the CONCLUSION of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Not the season finale, but the "conclusion of". Anybody else catch that? Didn't find that "season two-ish prone" at all.

AncientMagicks | March 04, 19:05 CET

I've heard that on more shows when there where two-parters (or more) but if the show had been cancelled, I suppose Fox had annouced it already?

Krusher | March 04, 19:17 CET

I liked the way the Cromartie showdown was shown entirely off screen, most likely for budget and time reasons as mentioned, but also Cameron's disposal of the guy following them also happened off screen. Not sure I buy Cameron's telling the truth to John's friend, she has shown that she is more than capable of lying to protect the mission, why tell someone she barely knows that you've just killed someone and dumped them in the boot of their car?

On the other hand, I don't think the article is fair in blaming Cameron for not telling John how the chip works. Why would a Terminator need to know how it's own CPU actually works? We function quite well without knowing how our brains work, it's quite possible that she doesn't actually know the details of how her own mind works.
As to plugging her CPU into the traffic control system? Reminds me of Will Smith uploading a virus to the alien mothership with a Mac...

And the ending? Not much of a cliffhanger, a Terminator should be able to withstand a minor explosion quite easily.

zz9 | March 04, 20:15 CET

Well, yes, but Cameron's flesh won't withstand it. Lucky she saved that other terminator's skin.

As for the cliffhanger being anticlimactic, it wasn't originally meant to be much of one anyway, since viewers would find out what happened the next week. There were supposed to be 4 more episodes, but Fox decided that would be all they'd make for this season.

shambleau | March 04, 23:05 CET

Cameron/Summer will have all these burns (meaning hours in the make up chair! LOL), of course she DID deserve it for stuffy that guy in his trunk (funniest scene ever, I hope she does get to go to the prom!). I really am enjoying this show, I hope the ratings are good.

embers | March 05, 00:01 CET

The ratings weren't bad, but they were not great either. The second hour was respectable and should warrant a pick-up.

TamaraC | March 05, 00:53 CET

Wikipedia seems to think that it's been no lower than 3rd in its timeslot, that has to count for something and the last two were up on the previous episode - the first time that's happened - so some cause for hope.


Err, he did didn't he ? Ellison only missed him because he got in a lift going down as Cromartie stepped out of one coming up. Why he was spared is still a mystery though.

Didn't really get the nitpicks, especially the one about "Intel's founder" - Moore's law is real, is well known to anyone in computing and is also really named after Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, how that's product placement I don't know.

The Cromartie showdown may well have been off-screen for budgetary reasons but, man, they worked it to perfection. The shot looking up out of the swimming pool with the muffled sounds etc. had the feel of art about it IMO.

As to the chip, seems a bit inconsistent (she must know enough about it to know the pin-outs for instance or how could John build an interface to it ? And also much is made of the fat bus on the custom Korean gear John gets hold of, so in what universe is a traffic light going to have that sort of bandwidth back to its central hub - which it'd surely need for Cameron to upload herself, assuming that's what happened ?) but, to be honest, they've bought it as far as i'm concerned, they've earned the credit that you give a show you like even when it's dropping bollocks.

Saje | March 05, 01:44 CET

If FOX gives it a second season then that means that Dollhouse will most likely be treated with respect. Cause SCC hasn't been a huge hit, but it has been doing fairly well considering recent events. If FOX takes a "chance" and gives it a second season, it will prove that Joss was right about FOX being different. And Dollhouse will be given a fair run.

Also Pushing Daisies had a similar thing going on in the ratings. It started out pretty strong but went down slowly. SCC actually did a lot better in that it started out much higher and never went as far down in the ratings as Pushing Daisies. It even picked up a little in the last episode. They have both been hailed by critics as well. ABC ended up picking up PD. I know ABC and FOX are totally different but you'd think FOX would follow ABC's example and keep a show that critics like and that does fairly well in the ratings.

xerox | March 05, 01:50 CET

In addition to the tech gripes above, re: the Korean gear. Great bandwidth ;) Aside from that, my minor quibble is that the only OEM of CPUs or GPUs of any type in Korea right now is Samsung, who makes mobile phone processors (at least as far as I am aware). Other than that its strictly fab businesses like TSMC who stamp out other peoples die designs (like nVidia and AMD/ATi or DAAMiT as hardware geeks like to say...). If he really wants super power he just needs to buy an Intel Core 2 Quad and start cranking the FSB (and possibly the core voltage). As far as overclocked RAM, OCZ platinum rev2 is like $35/2GB after rebate right now and you can push it to 950ish fairly easily at tighter than spec timings.

I think really I was just happy that John brought some of his hardware with him and wasn't able to plug Cameron directly into the traffic box. At that point I would've had to vomit and turn off the show.

zeitgeist | March 05, 02:06 CET

I find all the above comments very interesting and I am rooting for this show to succeed. But the real reason I posted this link was because of the intriguing (and amusing) comments of the blogger...


and

floofypooh | March 05, 02:12 CET

I did kinda wonder when ambulance dispatchers started divulging details of FBI raids over unsecured radios, but what the hell...

C. A. Bridges | March 05, 02:21 CET

I guess the real question is (after Terminator gets picked up for next season) what shows end up on Friday night?

TamaraC | March 05, 02:26 CET

Dollhouse? Kill me dead.

gossi | March 05, 02:30 CET

Pfft... they do that all of the time... ;)

zeitgeist | March 05, 02:31 CET

If Fox cancels this show based only on that old fashioned Nielsen ratings, then I have no hope for Dollhouse. Come on Fox, it's 2008 and there are more ways these days to watch a show. Consider it as a global event instead of American viewers only. And this is not an attack on Fox only, this message applies to all networks cancelling shows based on Nielsen ratings. There are more networks out there then the USA! There is Blu-Ray/DVD revenue, merchandise to be had (Did anyone say a 1:1 scale Cameron torso?? :D)

Oh and those lifeguard signs etc. at the pool, what gives? LOL
John and his gift from his uncle.. gave me a teary eye..

Krusher | March 05, 02:37 CET

I did kinda wonder when ambulance dispatchers started divulging details of FBI raids over unsecured radios

Pfft... they do that all of the time... ;)

Besides, those radios are very secure, they're kept in a zipped pocket when not in use.

(slightly more seriously, don't your emergency services have encrypted digital comms yet ? Right enough, we probably have fewer police etc. so it must've been much cheaper to bring in over here)

Re: death slot, maybe they could bring back 'Firefly' so they have at least one show to shuffle, pre-empt etc. ? If it means leaving 'Dollhouse' alone I call it a win, omelettes/eggs ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-03-04 23:40 ]

Saje | March 05, 02:39 CET

Why should a US network care about viewers outside America? They are not a charity.

Simon | March 05, 02:48 CET

And the other answer is, they do consider other markets, but if they can't sell it at home, why should they think they can sell it elsewhere? Except Germany, 'cause, you know, Hasselhoff... ;)

ETA - and I see gossi brought up the other point which is, a lot of these revenue streams are revenue for the production studio, not the airing network.

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2008-03-04 23:53 ]

zeitgeist | March 05, 02:51 CET

There is Blu-Ray/DVD revenue, merchandise to be had (Did anyone say a 1:1 scale Cameron torso?? :D)

...which Fox Broadcasting Corp sees nothing of. Shows on network TV live and die by Nielsen. If people don't watch Dollhouse, it'll get cancelled.

gossi | March 05, 02:51 CET

Like I said, more revenue, dvd, blu-ray sales and merchandise are the moneybringers. And then there are the rights to the shows to air them abroad and again, rights to sell merchandise with the Fox *cough* approved label. There are more viewers then USA citizens alone. Fortunatly they are getting it in the movie industry.

edit:

Fox wont get a percentage of those sales? Bad business model then.

[ edited by Krusher on 2008-03-04 23:56 ]

Krusher | March 05, 02:54 CET

I would imagine that international sales will factor in to the revenue stream model for Dollhouse. I would be very surprised if there isn't a little bidding war in the UK over the rights to the show.

Of course, comparing Dollhouse and Terminator is apples and oranges since WB makes Terminator (which has already been pointed out). That being said if Dollhouse ends up on Friday nights drawing 5 million viewers it doesn't matter what any international network wants to pay for. It will be canceled.

TamaraC | March 05, 03:12 CET

Building on Krusher's suggestion: if a proposed show could demonstrate a much greater than average probability of shifting DVDs/other merch, perhaps by virtue of attracting a SF/F audience more likely to indulge in such things, wouldn't that call for a more sophisticated profit-sharing arrangement between the producer and the distributor? I understand why the distributor feels obliged to cut loose shows with "low" figures, presumably because its revenue depends solely on the value of the advertising it can sell; but wouldn't an up-front shared profit deal be win-win if a show with a relatively small audience but a hard-core fan base continued to air? The distributor could hedge against a slightly smaller audience with expected revenue from elsewhere, and the producer could expect a reduced but longer-lasting profit stream so long as the show continued to air, develop, and introduce new marketable characters and concepts.

Obviously I know nothing about TV financing, so I'm just thinking aloud here. TamaraC, gossi, MrAceAccountant: is there something inherently impossible/impractical about striking such a deal? (It wouldn't be down to complexity; this stuff is Byzantine enough already, and G-d knows lawyers love complexity - it just gives them more work . . .) Do producers and distributors never do this kind of thing?

SoddingNancyTribe | March 05, 03:20 CET

I've always thought what you're describing would work, SNT. I just wish they would do it.

According to the AMPTP (hee!), the average failed show costs a network about $22m or so. Firefly had the 2nd most expensive pilot at the time, so that figure was probably more towards $30m I'd guess. That said? I'm willing to bet between DVDs, merch and licensing rights, 20th Century Fox made a tidy profit. The models should probably change; I don't understand why they don't.

gossi | March 05, 03:23 CET

Sad, but true, and like sticking heads in sand. As much as I love tv, it's becoming brainless.
In my country (Netherlands) real-life shows are the next best thing. Idols, Dancing with the Stars, X-Factor (Idols again) Farmer seeks wife and numerous other crap programmes no-one has to think about, let alone discuss. I want my tv to show something I can relax about, and forget about real life for a moment. I have enough real life of myself, thank you. :D

I really don't understand American networks or the producers, take a chance, Buffy worked out fine. And there are even new DVD boxsets out there.

Krusher | March 05, 03:31 CET

SNT, the easier way to deal with this is for WB to discount the license fee that they charge to Fox. I can't really see a whole lot of rev share deals going on between competitors in the manner you are suggesting. Too much info would have to be shared. And then there would be the auditing. ACK!

I think Fox will pick up the show, but I bet they are negotiating a new license fee while holding the (lower than expected?) ratings in their hands.

This show has the potential of being profitable all the way around. I think its fate depends more on the WBs greed (or lack thereof) than on Fox's fickle programmers.

TamaraC | March 05, 03:31 CET

Sell the 1:1 torso and it will be profitable

/joke

But I want one anyway!!!

Krusher | March 05, 03:40 CET

Ah, the info-sharing obstacle. I suppose that would render my thinkpiece an impossibility (although, again, if something is really in both parties' interests, I wonder why such snags cannot be negotiated around . . .). I get too that discounting the license fee is much more straightforward, although seems psychically less satisfying to me - well, I did say I don't know from financing . . . :-). Cheers for the response.

SoddingNancyTribe | March 05, 06:36 CET

If a proposed show could demonstrate a much greater than average probability of shifting DVDs/other merch, perhaps by virtue of attracting a SF/F audience more likely to indulge in such things, wouldn't that call for a more sophisticated profit-sharing arrangement between the producer and the distributor?

The money the networks pay doesn't cover the actual production costs, so they already get a discount, their advertising income doesn't have to cover the real cost. The producing studio assume long term DVD sales, foreign sales and syndication and that enables them to sell at below cost. With certain types of show (sci-fi, drama etc) they predict good DVD sales and so can sell for lower, while shows such as reality, which rarely gets good DVD sales or repeat showings, they have to ask a higher price for the first airing.
So in a way this is taken into account.

zz9 | March 05, 10:04 CET

But obviously reality programming is much cheaper to start with, partly why it's so attractive to networks.

T:TSCC has long tail written all over it, the right kind of fans, massively popular back-story and universe and in a year or so a huge publicity bandwagon to leap onto (when T4: Salvation comes out). It's also doing very well on DVR and downloads, I just hope the execs really embrace the implications of the new-media they've kicked up such a fuss over in the last few months and give the show a chance.

Idols, Dancing with the Stars, X-Factor (Idols again) Farmer seeks wife and numerous other crap programmes no-one has to think about, let alone discuss.

You think that's bad Krusher, in the UK a show starts tonight called 'Rock Rivals' which is, wait for it, a drama set on a reality TV show. Truly, the snake has eaten itself ;).

Saje | March 05, 14:27 CET