May 10 2009
Possible line-ups for Fox.
The article has some talk about the fate of Dollhouse and what may stand in the way of a second season renewal.
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
sumogrip | May 10, 22:19 CET
Why is it that the descriptions for "Human Target" and "The Reincarnationist" read somewhat like potential premises for future Dollhouse episodes? Le sigh.
CrazyKidBen | May 10, 22:20 CET
In my fairy tale happy place, Human Target would make a great pairing for Dollhouse.
jkalderash | May 10, 22:22 CET
@theonetruebix | May 10, 22:28 CET
kmb99 | May 10, 22:32 CET
sumogrip | May 10, 22:34 CET
lottalettuce | May 10, 22:41 CET
vampmogs | May 10, 22:46 CET
Harmalicious | May 10, 23:08 CET
IrrationaliTV | May 10, 23:10 CET
Never once heard that Bones was in trouble.
And an AbFab remake? Seriously?
*groans*
ShanshuBugaboo | May 11, 00:06 CET
Ricardo L. | May 11, 00:16 CET
Wasn't that Cybil?
Simon | May 11, 01:02 CET
Kizzy | May 11, 01:51 CET
Yes, FOX ordered 6 scripts but that's not confirmation of a renewal. However, I'm sure Bones will be on the line up for Fall. You're pointing out you can't believe everything you read, yet you point out EW's Ausiello cheat list. I can easily say don't read too much into that b/c those are just his predictions. *shrugs*
That's all I'll say re Bones b/c the most important show we're worried about, here, imo is Dollhouse. I agree DH and Fringe make a good pair. That'll be a good idea if DH gets a second season. *crosses fingers*
[ edited by phillynikki on 2009-05-11 11:14 ]
phillynikki | May 11, 02:11 CET
[ edited by phillynikki on 2009-05-11 11:15 ]
phillynikki | May 11, 02:11 CET
Kizzy | May 11, 02:55 CET
Like I said, I'm sure Bones will be in the Fall lineup. So, there's nothing to worry about re Bones. Wasn't Bones on the bubble list last year, too lol? Reporters like to rile up people, sometimes. DH, on the other hand, we have to worry about. *sighs* I'm hoping it weather's the storm, as well.
phillynikki | May 11, 03:16 CET
Kizzy | May 11, 03:29 CET
katetwo | May 11, 03:32 CET
Slightly OT, I just read the following: "The CW is parting ways with Sunday-night programming. The network will hand over its 5-10PM slot to local affiliates beginning next season, reports Variety. In the meantime, the network plans to consolidate its lineup down to a Monday through Friday schedule. "
Makes you wonder what other networks will do, such as, say, put Leno on 5 days a week in prime time to save money.
[ edited by Dana5140 on 2009-05-11 13:20 ]
Dana5140 | May 11, 03:44 CET
rehabber | May 11, 04:43 CET
Nebula1400 | May 11, 06:30 CET
I have moved the LONGFORM of this diatribe over here so as to not clutter up Whedonesque so much with my vociferousness. Terribly sowwy. =)
[ edited by ZachsMind on 2009-05-11 17:53 ]
ZachsMind | May 11, 07:35 CET
gossi | May 11, 08:13 CET
I mean, could Virtuality have potentially replaced dollhouse?
[ edited by mortimer on 2009-05-11 17:20 ]
mortimer | May 11, 08:19 CET
dzr | May 11, 08:33 CET
jkalderash | May 11, 08:36 CET
@theonetruebix | May 11, 08:41 CET
gossi | May 11, 08:46 CET
I am purely speculating, and haven't heard any of the buzz/rumors about Virtuality and its possible pairing with Dollhouse. But, given the low level of success with TSCC/DH, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox were not eager to repeat it with the roles reverse (DH/Virtuality). I can kind of see mortimer's point that Fox may have limited space in its projected line-up for thinky-fi-sci, so I can see why no Virtuality could be positive for Dollhouse's future.
Septimus | May 11, 08:53 CET
gossi | May 11, 09:03 CET
[ edited by Septimus on 2009-05-11 20:32 ]
Septimus | May 11, 09:05 CET
Why do we need something to pair Dollhouse with? I don't understand this false belief that leading in something that is so much like Dollhouse it 'complements' Dollhouse would be a good idea.
The way it should work is this: you take something that's got good ratings, and then you put a new series after it to encourage the first show's audience to stick around and try something new, but you don't give them something close to the same thing. That'd be like a chef making a three course meal of truffles, because the public liked the first course of truffles so well they'll surely go for more truffles. ..not!
When NBC paired Cheers up with Night Court oh so many years ago, it wasn't because Night Court was anything remotely like Cheers, except for funny. That worked because after a half hour of Cheers, Night Court was a great second course. You don't want more of the same on the plate after a whole plate of what you just had. Same with Frazier. Though based on Cheers, it wasn't Cheers. It had it's own flavor, and was later used to lead other shows after it, because it was a good meal in itself.
You'd want to pair Dollhouse up with another drama maybe. Not necessarily another scifi program, and certainly not something with pisspoor numbers like Terminator had. This is one of the MANY problems FOX has had - it doesn't know how to present its courses like a gourmet chef. It's thinking fast food when it should be thinking five star restaurant. I've witnessed this for twenty years now. It's painful to watch, which is why I stopped watching FOX.
"I'm not smiling! I'm wincing!" - Clyde Bruckman
ZachsMind | May 11, 09:05 CET
That's actually only part of the story.
Drama sells higher ad rates than reality tv, but that's not because it's necessarily more desired by advertisers. It's because drama costs more to produce than reality tv. The reason reality tv proliferates despite lackluster or sporadic ratings is because it costs a fraction of money to produce when compared to dramas or even some sitcoms.
So if a reality tv show doesn't pull in outrageous numbers, but pulls in numbers respectable enough to make some ad revenue, the production company and the network still comes out ahead in the wash.
In other words, dramas have to do better than any other competition in order to pay for itself. Reality tv only has to do better than say.. reruns of The Golden Girls.
Comparatively, dramas have to rake in major dough for the networks to even break even, because the producers of said dramas have such a high overhead to even get the project made. Joss Whedon don't come cheap; Mark Burnett does.
You think it was cheap of Joss Whedon's set designers to make that spaceship for Firefly? Or the pretty spa for Dollhouse? There's a reason why Alpha's lair looked like crap in the last episode of Dollhouse. It's not because Alpha's a bad interior decorator. He had thirty-eight people in his head. Surely one of them had feng shui. The truth is, the production company couldn't afford to put any more money into set design.
Eliza Dushku don't come cheap, but contestants volunteer to make fools of themselves. Some would pay the producers for that privilege. Don't believe me? Look at the Playboy centerfold bunny that Hugh Hefner weaseled into the Elvira Mistress of the Dark reality show back in 2007. I bet Cassandra Peterson quietly cashed a check over that.
If Dollhouse had been a reality show, the ratings it got would be more respectable, because it would have cost Mutant Enemy less to make than what FOX pulled in for ad revenue. In fact, "Dollhouse The Reality Show" where contestants pretend to be different people every week and go out trying to fool complete strangers for money and laughs would definitely be renewed for a second season if it got the same ratings on a Friday night that our real Dollhouse tv series got. In fact FOX would be downright giddy over it.
Don't believe me? I got two words for ya: Fear Factor.
Over half a BILLION dollars in ad revenue during its five year run, in return for fifty thousand dollars a week in prize money, some small investments in yellow and black paint, and occasional trips to exotic take out eateries. Low overhead. High profits. It was the first reality show to go into syndication which makes even more money. Frankly I'm shocked the series isn't still going. Not too shabby.
ZachsMind | May 11, 09:44 CET
Syndication? DVD sales? Reality just doesn't feature in these markets.
And as for overseas sales, very few reality shows sell overseas in big numbers. If it's going to air overseas it'll be the format that is sold, not the show. Each country will make (at it's own further expense) the show locally.
This is why Studios sell shows like Dollhouse to Networks at a loss, not even covering the cost of making an episode. They predict they will make money for years to come in repeats, syndication, DVD sales, overseas sales etc.
Reality may be cheaper to make, but the studios will charge full price, including a healthy profit margin, to the networks because they know that will be it.
If it cost $3m to make an episode of drama and $1m to make an hour of reality then the networks would pay $2m for drama and $1.5m for reality. (Figures made up to illustrate the point)
Plus of course the "Market Segment" that each will attract.
The general assumption is that "the brain dead clods that watch reality are poor working class with no money while drama is watched by educated, professional people with money to spare"
To advertisers a drama viewer is worth far more than a reality viewer.
[ edited by zz9 on 2009-05-11 19:44 ]
zz9 | May 11, 10:38 CET
m'cookies actual | May 11, 12:32 CET
Advertisers in question take into account what kind of audience they want to reach. Yes we are perhaps smarter than most reality viewers. However, that also means we don't easily fall prey to just any marketing campaign. The advertising agencies know that it has to appeal to us or it'll waste its money, if it's going to spend more money on drama commercial slots. Some advertisers prefer the lower common denominator of reality tv. They don't care about the quality of the audience, just the number of wallets that'll open to them.
Ultimately it's a numbers game. And I just recently counted with little difficulty well over twenty shows FOX has prematurely canceled in the past decade or so that I liked. Obviously wherever I fall in their little demographics? I don't matter. They don't want me. Nor do I suspect do they want you. ...US. The ones smart enough to see the maze and the cheese, and would just assume not be treated like labrats.
ZachsMind | May 11, 12:48 CET
Sunfire | May 11, 13:14 CET
brinderwalt | May 11, 13:21 CET
Yea, except that does not relate at all to the idea of pair bonding, which is what every network does to secure their time slots so people will not flip over to a competitor when their 1 show is done. People like having similar things grouped together and don't take kindly to rapid gear changes.
silent knight | May 11, 15:28 CET