September 23
2008
Dollhouse moves from Channel TEN in Australia.
FOX8 has picked up the rights to air Dollhouse. Initially the series was picked up by TEN.
Effulgent
| Dollhouse
| 22:21 CET
|
61 comments total
| tags: dollhouse, australian tv
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
EW's 15 TV Shows Where Music's a C...
|
Jewel Staite to make a special app...
Newer »
© 2002 - 2009 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
Beth | September 23, 22:28 CET
Also Dollhouse is going to be sold primarily to the younglings? Boo urns.
Simon | September 23, 22:32 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 23, 22:39 CET
There's some background about what happened here. It actually contains some factual errors from both the reporter and the Fox staff member.
gossi | September 23, 22:40 CET
Effulgent | September 23, 22:54 CET
What was that? Something about getting off your lawn?
Sunfire | September 23, 23:06 CET
There's plenty of shows in Foxtel/Austar that are worth watching, and aren't shown on free-to-air often or at all.
Gouki | September 23, 23:35 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 23, 23:46 CET
Cable tv here is so expensive for so little. I know we got rid of it when we were looking at almost $80 a month for our cable on top of the $80 a month for the cable internet, and from what I've seen it's probably even more expensive to have all the channels we used to. I wonder if it will be on iTunes oz or not.
[ edited by Ivalaine on 2008-09-23 23:49 ]
Ivalaine | September 23, 23:46 CET
Madhatter | September 23, 23:59 CET
There might be plenty on Foxtel worth watching, but I don't have enough time to watch enough TV to make it worth that amount of money. Looks like I'll be ordering a DVD from the US as soon as they are available.
minime | September 24, 00:07 CET
zz9 | September 24, 00:29 CET
Let Down | September 24, 00:39 CET
On the bright side, at least it looks like payTV actually show these programs. If Pushing Daisies and Chuck had been picked up by one of the payTV channels, I bet they would have been shown and out on DVD by now, not stuffed in some dusty drawer of Ch9 awaiting the non-rating period.
Effulgent | September 24, 00:57 CET
. | September 24, 01:15 CET
But then again my parents pay for Foxtel so...yeh.
aus-mitch | September 24, 01:37 CET
The only other stuff on pay tv I'd likely watch is on sci-fi and that'd then cost me $60 a month! no thanks, especially when I have most of it on dvd anyway
Beth | September 24, 01:42 CET
NuVanessa | September 24, 01:58 CET
Aviva | September 24, 04:00 CET
$40 p/m is just for basic cable here in "we don't want you to watch good TV unless we can get lots and lots of your money and still make you sit through ads" land (aka Australia). And basic cable is pretty basic.
At least Fox8 is generally in the basic package, but that changes on the whims of the cable companies. If you want to add Sci-Fi, you're looking at around $60. Throw on another $20 is you want to be able to watch Dexter or other Showtime goodies (and don't want to wait 2 years till they're on network TV).
So, while I would pay $40 to buy the DVD Box Set of Dollhouse, I'm not going to pay $40 per month. Torrenting it is. Grrrrr.
JenskiJen | September 24, 04:19 CET
We all here are TV fans... and its been a LONG time since Free-to-Air TV was the *Home* of good TV. Times have changed. People pirate, and people TiVo. Im surprised that there are people here WITHOUT foxtel in Australia (without meaning offence to those without the money available). As a TV fan I couldnt live without it. There are things on FOX8, Comedy Channel, SCI,FI and Lifestyle which I watch all the time... and its been a VERY long time since I have watched something on 7, 9 or 10. What has there been? If its a show of any value... it can be downloaded months before its even show up on the program guide for Free-to-Air. How I met your Mother, The Office.. these shows would BE COMPLETE TORTURE TO WATCH if you relyed on Channel 7, or 10, in this day and age.
Dollhouse on FOX8 is a much better home than Channel 10.
I mean honestly. How many times did Buffy start 40 minutes late (11.10pm) or MORE when it was on 7... week in and week out.
NO THANKYOU.
Beren77 | September 24, 09:22 CET
I'll be hanging out for the DVD (which I will no doubt have to order from the US anyway).
highandrandom | September 24, 10:07 CET
Then again, I am paying $12 per week so I can not go to the gym.
Effulgent | September 24, 10:38 CET
You say only 25% - but I would suggest that the 25% contains a high percentage of true 'fans' of TV. So the 75% left are more than likely to be the ones who probably wouldnt watch Dollhouse anyway.
I know that is REMARKABLY general and non-scientific, but I think there is a important point there.
The more I think about it, the more it becomes appartent that 'Free-To-Air TV' is a dated concept that has no real place in the world anymore. Sad maybe, but true. There isnt enough money to be made giving everyone free tv. People dont watch ads anymore.
Beren77 | September 24, 10:45 CET
highandrandom | September 24, 11:00 CET
Yes, free to air TV does not treat shows well, but it still exposes shows to the population. Straight to cable just means less exposure and less exposure is less chance for success. Of that supposed 25% of people with cable in Australia what percentage will be interested in watching Dollhouse? I don't know, but probably not 25% (I agree with highandrandom that most paytvers are sports fans). Going straight to cable means a huge percentage of the Australian population won't be able to say whether they like it or dislike it, they just will never hear of it, which will translate into fewer dvd sales.
NuVanessa | September 24, 11:37 CET
There's no way I'm getting Pay TV for just one show.
Beren77, free-to-air (even commercial stuff) becomes much easier to swallow with a DVR. I just set programs to record, and at the end of the week check to see what presents my Media Centre has waiting for me. Mind you, most of the best TV is on ABC and SBS anyway.
The Least | September 24, 11:57 CET
mjwilson | September 24, 12:17 CET
Simon | September 24, 12:28 CET
Ivalaine | September 24, 13:02 CET
[ edited by Carmie on 2008-09-24 13:17 ]
Carmie | September 24, 13:16 CET
You are right about DVR. And thats kinda my point aswell. My foxtel has DVR inbuilt (FoxtelIQ, TiVo in USA) and its just THE basis for how I watch TV. Only a very special show would actually make me watch it at its original air time.
Now that is totally different to how I was 5 years ago. I would base my nights around what show i wanted to watch and made sure I was able to view it. Back that up with asking whoever was home to hit 'record' on the VCR and you have my television viewing habit.
But all that has changed forever since DVR. Sure you can have DVR JUST for your free-to-air digital channels, but for me Id rather have 60 channels to program into my DVR than 5....
Beren77 | September 24, 13:47 CET
Since I'm in a location that can't get broadband access, and Pay TV is not an option, looks like the DVD will have to be the go. Not really surprised by the 25% figure either, really; it may just be my limited experience, but Pay TV has always seemed like an extravagance rather than the norm. Last I heard it's picking up some viewers, but still hasn't made any sizeable dent in the free-to-air market.
. | September 24, 13:59 CET
Beren77 - that's what I have the internet for. I'm constantly broke, there's no way I'd be able to afford pay TV. Also, plenty of good television has made its way onto pay TV here, if only temporarily.
Green Queen | September 24, 15:01 CET
Your right, and im being simplistic. I just think TV isnt like it was in the 90s. Its not going to go back to that, where commecial networks basically control the habits of the vast majority of the populus. People have broken out of that system, to a large extent. The pirate market, DVR - all these things have changed TV. And that leads me to the argument ive made about 7, 9 and 10 becoming increasingly irrelivent.
But again, im being simplistic. Sadly it is commonplace still around australia to have the 6-7pm double dose of news and trashy current affairs show blaring out of every suburban TV... ads drawing you into the next show, and then the next. Parents still are going to want the free babysitter that TV is. People are still going to watch CSI because is is a cardboard copy of the last episode and it gives them a little mindless escape. Fast food, beer and car companies are gonna still throw money at these shows and its not going to go away.
But as for 'our' little slice of the TV world.. the TV world with artistic asparations and courage... well I dont think there is a place for us in that corporate structure. As we found with Firefly. But lets remember that shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and so on were not produced by NBC, CBS, ABC. So its not a rule that Dollhouse must be in that mold.
But at the end of the day it IS Fox producing Dollhouse, not HBO... so standards sadly will be different. Anyway Ive rambled. Ill go now.
Beren77 | September 24, 16:13 CET
And can we please not talk so openly about torrents and piracy here? It makes me very uncomfortable. In case anyone forgot it is still illegal and still takes money out of the pockets of the actors, writers, and producers of the show.
IrrationaliTV | September 24, 18:31 CET
Caroline | September 24, 19:31 CET
Every show I love I have bought on DVD. I have two full shelves of DVDs. I am willing to pay for anything I feel deserves it. Even shows I havent watched again.
But I dont want to wait 3 or 4 months or more to watch the latest episode of 'The Office'. I have no moral qualms with downloading it now and buying the DVD later. If I were in America, I would have it TiVo'd and I would still watch without the ads. And I wouldnt feel bad.
Is the alternative that we politely sit and watch the ads? Like *really* try and concentrate and absorb them? Make little notes that BigW is 5% off linen this week ? In gratitude of the money they have given to the TV Network that makes my little TV show possible?
Anywho. Sorry, this has just touched a nerve with me. Probably not the right time or place to vent! '.'
Beren77 | September 24, 19:43 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 24, 19:45 CET
I am so there.
(if the ratings in Australia don't affect whether the show lives or dies and the downloader buys the DVDs, why would torrenting the show take money out of the pockets of the actors, writers and producers of the show ?)
Saje | September 24, 19:55 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 24, 20:03 CET
I know when we're used to thinking about property as something you either have or don't have then the first reaction is to assume someone must be losing out of it but I can't for the life of me see how. No device means not watching it as it's broadcast doesn't count/matter. The broadcaster's already bought it from the US network so their outlay is fixed no-matter what you do. The only entities that seem to potentially lose are the companies buying ad time (assuming it's a commercial network) but even then, if you don't have a problem with advert skipping then even the advertisers that might have benefited from the extra eyeballs don't count).
Seems like there must be a flaw in that reasoning but I can't see it.
Saje | September 24, 20:52 CET
So you can see the list of shows for that network and choose the ones you think you want to watch, and those shows are broadcast both in their original timeslot and also recorded to your DVR for your eternal ownership. You can buy by the episode or subscribe to the series.
I think this would quickly shake up the industry, and take away the unnatural framework that its set up in at the moment - the old Forest-King style.
Beren77 | September 24, 21:42 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 24, 21:42 CET
moley75 | September 24, 22:11 CET
I would assume many people like me are in the same boat and I would bet there's a considerable amount of them who now download shows that they used to watch legally.
Simon | September 24, 22:21 CET
(if you take 'Heroes' for instance, well, the BBC bought that, and i've already paid for the licence and don't have a ratings box so presumably that'd be OK to download. 'Dexter' on the other hand is on ITV so maybe not in that case. But what about if I never watch adverts anyway ?)
The flaw in your thinking is in justifying future purchases and assuming that ratings measurement numbers are absolute and not statistical representations.
Hmm, yep that's a good point about measurement as representation of a whole TamaraC (not quite sure what you mean about justifying future purchases, soz ;).
I dunno though, remember we're allowing advert skipping (or are you against that too ? - that's not meant to be a loaded question BTW, it'd be totally consistent with supporting commercial TV as a model I think) so say you don't download it but watch along with everyone else except you skip the adverts. Well, in that case the ratings still don't reflect the number of eyeballs the advertisers are paying for so they're still suffering because the ratings aren't representative of the number of potential customers they're reaching - they're effectively being overcharged for their ad time, getting less bang per buck (I assume that's the issue you have with non-representative ratings, correct me if i'm wrong though). Like downloading, the more widespread advert skipping becomes the more skewed the ratings so the more the advertisers are being overcharged.
Unless ratings boxes/diaries record whether you skip adverts while viewing (so they can adjust by proportion throughout the representation) ? We were measured once, way back when I was a kid (it was just a book you filled in back then, none of yer fancy electronic gizmos ;) so i've no idea what steps they take nowadays to try to figure out if you're skipping ads.
[ edited by Saje on 2008-09-24 22:28 ]
Saje | September 24, 22:27 CET
What I mean about future purchases is that a network like 10 or 8 (whichever one is on ad supported cable in Australia) will make future decisions about purchasing shows in a similar vein on how many new subscribers they gained or lost on addition of a new show. If their subscriber base saw a bump when Dollhouse was added then they would be more likely to add similar shows in the future. If their was no subscriber bump with the addition of Dollhouse then they would be less likely to add similar shows in the future.
Ratings is only one form of measurement. Networks also look very closely at iTunes purchases and Hulu views and other legal ways of acquiring their shows in order to brag on or justify that show's existence.
[ edited by TamaraC on 2008-09-25 01:46 ]
IrrationaliTV | September 24, 23:24 CET
zaphod | September 25, 01:41 CET
Top ranking free to air show last week was 1.895m viewers (Aussie drama, Packed to the Rafters). Top ranking drama that I'd care about - Dr Who 1.169m.
By camparison on pay TV last week: Project Runway Australia (Arena) 229,000 and The Simpsons (Fox 8) 194,000.
So assuming the Simpsons is the top rated Fox 8 show I wouldn't be expecting a huge following for Dollhouse.
(Info from - http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare/archives/2008/09/the_who_we_are_10.html)
merceroz | September 25, 04:08 CET
As far as ads go. I like this new less ads policy. We have a radio station that does the same here. Never more than 2 in a row. I think they've done their research. They play the same songs as another station, similar type style of radio hosts/shows, yet my radio, and others I know, tune into the less ads station. Why? Because we know when an ad comes on and we're driving, it's less hassle to sit there and listen to the two ads, than to surf the channels looking for one without ads. I have not noticed that they play ads more often (in fact their catch cry is Nova plays more music) Maybe they can make the same revenue from less ads, because they can charge more because they have the numbers to back it up, that more people actually listen to the ads on their station than on others. That's all just guesses. But once apon a time, Foxtel was like this. It's been well over 10 years since we got rid of Foxtel. When we first got it, there was only ads for the channels and upcoming shows. Then slowly McDonalds ads crept in. Now there is just as many ads as on free to air channels. Pay TV used to be about less ads. you paid the channels money which added up to ad revenue, so they could use less. Now they charge more for Foxtel (Double now what we first started paying... Who says things get cheaper as they've been around longer?) and have more ads. I know I would much rather pay to watch it from iTunes and have no ads, than pay through the nose each month to watch it with ads.
Ivalaine | September 25, 05:23 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 25, 05:36 CET
I would imagine that Sky outbid C4 and the BBC for Lost and 24 because it expected to get more subscribers specifically for those shows.
moley75 | September 25, 10:12 CET
And also, surely buying shows is partly about competing on specific nights or timeslots i.e. they're trying to get existing subscribers to watch Sky rather than the Beeb at a given point ? That's what makes the British system different (to the US I mean, from what I gather Canada also has a TV tax of sorts ?) - no-matter who else you subscribe to, you must pay for the BBC, meaning you always have the option to watch those channels instead.
But anyway, re: pay channels, yeah, I think there's an injured party there.
Tivoing is measured and many more TiVo users than you would expect watch commercials
It's a pity (but totally understandable) that figures for things like Tivo viewers that actually watch adverts aren't available to Joe Public because I reckon that's quite interesting (clearly some people enjoy adverts, or some of them at least - personally I can count on one or maybe two hands the number of adverts i've seen that i'd watch again voluntarily).
True though, if a pay channel watches new subscribers after a show launch to decide whether to buy other shows (or other seasons of the same show) then it's pretty hard to defend downloading shows that appear on pay channels in your country (unless you have no moral problem with depriving that channel of income). If they appear on non-commercial channels and/or free-to-air commercial channels then I still think it's a lot less clear-cut as to whether anyone suffers (or at least, whether they suffer relative to having the same viewers but with ad skipping).
Saje | September 25, 10:29 CET
I broke down and subscribed to HBO this year for the first time ever because I didn't want to wait to see True Blood and it isn't available on iTunes. I was hoping to just buy the eps and it may be something that I also buy on DVD, but I won't steal it through the Internet just because I might later buy it and I wouldn't be hurting anyone. I will pay the extra ten bucks a month and will consider the 4 or 5 shows a month that I get for that $10 bucks to be cheaper than paying $15 to go to a movie.
IrrationaliTV | September 25, 17:33 CET
As I say, it's a strange idea that you might actually be able to get something for nothing without hurting anyone, our first instinct is to assume that just can't be right somehow because before digital information that just didn't happen, the transfer of "stuff" was zero sum - what I had you didn't and vice versa. Nonetheless, I think under certain circumstances it is possible and if it's not wrong then the justification for it isn't a rationalisation because rationalisations are about excuses and these are reasons (that's not just logic chopping, there really is a tangible difference between excusing a behaviour you know to be wrong and providing reasons why it isn't wrong in the first place IMO, YMMV ;).
(note though the "certain circumstances" have narrowed for me over the course of this discussion and there are a few reasons - both technical to do with how Bittorrent works and on the basis of imperfect foreknowledge - that mean in practice I don't think you can download with a free conscience unless you buy the DVDs or compensate the relevant parties some other way)
Saje | September 25, 18:00 CET
IrrationaliTV | September 25, 18:15 CET
Anyhoo, i'm off to, ahem, make a list of DVDs for purchase in the near-ish future. Purely by coincidence you understand ;).
Saje | September 25, 18:30 CET
With the internet we have a tool for the quick global dissemination of popular culture (films/music/tv) and the new social experiences that comes with the worldwide watercooler talk we enjoy so much here on the W but the methods and business models of media distribution haven't yet changed to allow for this, ergo filesharing/torrents.
If tools like an international Hulu with a good selection of shows where made available it would take away a large part of the incentive for filesharing, IMO most people just want to watch their entertainment on a common worldwide schedule, used right the internet can make it possible.
jpr | September 25, 18:43 CET
Beren77 | September 25, 19:12 CET
jpr | September 25, 19:37 CET