From: cpd@cat.pan.net
"cloud dreamer" wrote in message
news:lpadnVv41YQUwpTQnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 15/12/2010 8:57 PM, catpandaddy wrote:
>>
>> "AC" wrote in message
>> news:sTcOo.37284$PE1.25505@newsfe29.ams2...
>>> catpandaddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "AC" wrote in message
>>>> news:6XUNo.53097$Wk6.47419@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>>>>> Apparently the David Hasselhof "reality show" has been cancelled
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> two episodes. The lead in show (Ozzy?) came in with 1.4 million and
>>>>>> David's show had 740 odd thousand and then a little over 600K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now THAT'S tanking. When you flush 50% of your audience, either the
>>>>>> network screwed up in its positioning or your show sucks. Losing
>>>>>> another almost 18% the next week suggests it wasn't positioning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, it tanked. This, er, show just tanked worse. Both still tanked.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> AC
>>>>
>>>> Fawlty Towers only lasted for 12 shows total, but people consider it to
>>>> be a good series even so!
>>>
>>> Yeah.... and? Several British shows did this, stopping when its right
>>> to, rather than milking it. Are you suggesting either of the above
>>> shows stopped for creative reasons??? Surely not.
>>
>> So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped
>> for creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a
>> third category there.
>
>
> Low ratings.
A good show that tanked and was revived by a movie, or a bad show that
tanked and was pushed into popularity by a movie.
Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was canned,
then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a franchise, made a
bunch of movies half of which were good and half of which weren't, then
flamed out with two series too many.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
