As TV networks tighten belts, look for fewer stars, fewer risks

SoulManX

The Inspector!
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
11,028
Reaction score
1
Points
58
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-03-31-network-squeeze_N.htm



CBS wanted Candice Bergen to star in its potential new comedy Big D, one of several pilots being considered for next fall's lineup. She'd play a difficult mother who makes like complicated for her son and his wife, new East Coast transplants to Dallas.
An early meeting was promising. Bergen is a bankable TV star, a five-time Emmy winner for the network's own Murphy Brown and, more recently, a feisty fixture of ABC's Boston Legal.

But when it came time to negotiate her salary, the two sides were worlds apart. In past years, the network and its studio supplier would have coughed up the dough to make the deal happen, and Bergen's mere presence would increase the odds that Big D would secure a spot on CBS' schedule.

Instead, CBS passed, the network confirmed. It instead cast Deanna Dunagan, a well-regarded but largely unknown Broadway actress, for a fraction of Bergen's asking price.

That's the math in the new Hollywood, where a combination of declining network ratings, sharply lower ad revenue and escalating production costs have forced cutbacks. The new austerity is being felt most keenly during the spring "development season," when networks groom a new crop of shows they'll consider for fall lineups.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-03-31-network-squeeze_N.htm



CBS wanted Candice Bergen to star in its potential new comedy Big D, one of several pilots being considered for next fall's lineup. She'd play a difficult mother who makes like complicated for her son and his wife, new East Coast transplants to Dallas.
An early meeting was promising. Bergen is a bankable TV star, a five-time Emmy winner for the network's own Murphy Brown and, more recently, a feisty fixture of ABC's Boston Legal.

But when it came time to negotiate her salary, the two sides were worlds apart. In past years, the network and its studio supplier would have coughed up the dough to make the deal happen, and Bergen's mere presence would increase the odds that Big D would secure a spot on CBS' schedule.

Instead, CBS passed, the network confirmed. It instead cast Deanna Dunagan, a well-regarded but largely unknown Broadway actress, for a fraction of Bergen's asking price.

That's the math in the new Hollywood, where a combination of declining network ratings, sharply lower ad revenue and escalating production costs have forced cutbacks. The new austerity is being felt most keenly during the spring "development season," when networks groom a new crop of shows they'll consider for fall lineups.

The show is going to be called "Big D" and yet it will be shot in Los Angeles with Computer generated images of Dallas inserted in.

This news isn't surprising seeing as though we already knew this when NBC got rid of five hours of primetime per week for Jay Leno.
 
I really hope primetime Leno bombs and bombs hard. For one thing, Leno needs to be taken off the radar. And second, I don't want scripted shows to go away for some cheap alternative.
 
The show is going to be called "Big D" and yet it will be shot in Los Angeles with Computer generated images of Dallas inserted in.

This news isn't surprising seeing as though we already knew this when NBC got rid of five hours of primetime per week for Jay Leno.

Stupid because it takes time away from maybe the next great show that might pop up on NBC....

Smart because you keep Lenos viewers and possibly get a ton more....
 
Eh, doesn't really bother me. What new, risky shows have actually been worth watching lately? The ones that are tend to lose the pesky, brain-deficient lowest common denominator audience and get canceled (I'm talking about Pushing Daisies in particular here, but it could go for any number of quality TV shows).
 
Eh, doesn't really bother me. What new, risky shows have actually been worth watching lately? The ones that are tend to lose the pesky, brain-deficient lowest common denominator audience and get canceled (I'm talking about Pushing Daisies in particular here, but it could go for any number of quality TV shows).

on Network TV?? Im not sure....I have stuff that I like (supernatural, Life, Greys Anatomy, Castle) but none of those really reinvent the wheel....
 
Eh, doesn't really bother me. What new, risky shows have actually been worth watching lately? The ones that are tend to lose the pesky, brain-deficient lowest common denominator audience and get canceled (I'm talking about Pushing Daisies in particular here, but it could go for any number of quality TV shows).

Pushing Daisies was just too ****ing quirky for me. If it was any other show, then I'd agree that the audience isnt smart enough, but as time went on the over-quirkiness of PD just turned me off.
 
on Network TV?? Im not sure....I have stuff that I like (supernatural, Life, Greys Anatomy, Castle) but none of those really reinvent the wheel....
Yeah, there are plenty of good shows that I could take or leave, but very little is jaw-droppingly original or great on TV these days. Frankly, I would be okay if maybe 5 or 6 of the shows I watch stuck around and all the rest went belly-up. The rest of them are just things I watch 'cause they're on, but I'm not really that into them.
 
Ive recently been pulled back into Law & Order because both the original and SVU have been pretty decent lately....but those are TV institutions at this point
 
"Its all been done." -Barenaked ladies:o
 
NBC is starting to improve a bit lately. They have the awesome show Kings and Southland is looking pretty good too from the previews. could be they are finally worth watching.
 
NBC is starting to improve a bit lately. They have the awesome show Kings and Southland is looking pretty good too from the previews. could be they are finally worth watching.

RATING are tanking.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"