Re: Terry Hatcher question related to Superman.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:31:21 -0400, John Duncan Yoyo
<john-duncan-yoyo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:22:27 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <4si3b29f8g487ga7lapli8ueh2j34e076m@xxxxxxx>,
John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-yoyo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:12:53 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <cvuva2tv5b2tjrv13ofmks45r2r85eb49s@xxxxxxx>,
shawn <nanoflower@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:54:29 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <barmar-4CE6CF.13482708072006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1152379802_22127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Uniblab" <uniblab@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Um, was it really a "hit" show?

"Lois & Clark" was on for 4 years and seemed to be quite successful for
most of its run. I don't know if it was consistently at the top of the
ratings, but it was clearly a hit.

It was a tremendous disaster, at least towards the end. I think at one
point it was the lowest rated show on network TV. ABC stuck it in a
death slot where nothing gets ratings anyway, and then paid a huge
penalty (IIRC, like $12 million) to get out of their contract and have
them stop making the damn thing. It always seemed silly to me; since
they have a death slot to fill anyway, why not fill it with that, rather
than pay to get rid of it?

Did they pay more to get rid of the show than it would have cost to
film the remaining episodes?

I think it was at least equal.

If so then that is a stupid move.

yep

If not
then maybe they just wanted to save some money, and leave that slot
open for the next lowest rated show that they want to justify getting
rid of.

Even if they saved SOME money, they still had to pay for SOME show to
put in that slot. The press releases at the time made it sound like
they were willing to lose millions just to get L&C off the air.

IMS it was doing well enough at the end of the second season for ABC
to renew it for two years. It tanked so badly in the third season
that ABC bought out the fourth season. ABC did the same thing with
Drew Carey except they just burned off the final seasons in the
summer. The biggest things these shows have in common are both Warner
Brothers shows.

Slight difference; they actually produced the Drew Carey shows and then
burned them off. Lois & Clark they paid them to NOT make any more.

Same problem- long term contracts for shows they didn't want later.
I'm guessing they decided to get something for their money the second
time around.

It's likely that someone higher up at ABC bitched at whoever gave the
go-ahead to buy out the L&C s5 and that was the direct motivator for
making Warners supply the three seasons of Drew Carey as long as the
network was going to have to pay for them anyway.

Got to hand it to Warners', though, and the way they keep getting ABC
and NBC to sign these multiyear contracts for L&C, TDCS and ER even
though it *never* works in the network's favor and the nets really
should have figured that out by now.

-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
.

Quantcast