# CSI: Cyber on CBS



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

*CSI: Cyber*

Premieres Wednesday, March 4th, 10:00 PM on CBS

SOURCE​


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Seriously, yet another CSI?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Seriously, yet another CSI?


Yup, more Hollywood franchising.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

^ "_Do it Right, Do it Once_"


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

Maybe this one will catch on and last longer than the last two.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

RBA said:


> Maybe this one will catch on and last longer than the last two.


What were the last two? Have not watched since a couple of seasons of the original. I get enough improbable scientific voodoo from Abby on NCIS, but she is cute so I do not mind.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

lwilli201 said:


> What were the last two? Have not watched since a couple of seasons of the original. I get enough improbable scientific voodoo from Abby on NCIS, but she is cute so I do not mind.


CSI Miami and CSI New York.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

We'll see...










I kinda like Patricia Arquette's sort of slow talking style....


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

This one intrigues me because it is relevant to crime these days. And Patricia Arquette is a wonderful actress.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I wonder if 'cyber' crime will be over the head of most viewers -- especially when they go into crime details?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

The science in the other three CSI's was pretty detailed, and yet the shows did fairly well with viewers. Of course, Hollywood will bend the actual science and details to meet their needs.

I just hope _*CSI: Crime Scene Investigation *_is renewed for another season.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Last season the Cyber team came in to help the regular CSI team.
Now we have a Cyber CSI show coming soon.



Spoiler



I just watched the season finale and it had a CSI San Diego guy there that offered Nick his job. Nick took it at the end of the show. 
Does this mean we will now have a CSI San Diego coming up next season ?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

'spoiler alert' would have been nice for those that haven't watched the season finale.

Nothing announced for anything other than CSI Cyber. And there are rumors that CSI might not be renewed for next year.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I wonder if 'cyber' crime will be over the head of most viewers -- especially when they go into crime details?


Half of what the medical examiners on most crime shows goes over my head, but I still enjoy them. Never under estimate the intellengence of the viewer. The ones that don't get the shows are most likely not watching anyway.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

While it's generally nice when they finally "get the bad guys," sometimes the believability of the tech that they use is outrageously stretched.



Spoiler



Didn't you just _love_ that usable audio could be obtained nearly instantaneously by some sort of "software" measuring the pixel deviations of microscopic movements of plant leaves on the surveillance video?!!!



Now I think I've seen just about everything. I can easily imagine that _Cyber_ could be much worse...


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

trh said:


> 'spoiler alert' would have been nice for those that haven't watched the season finale.
> 
> Nothing announced for anything other than CSI Cyber. And there are rumors that CSI might not be renewed for next year.


Sorry, but I can not see how that is done.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jimmie57 said:


> Sorry, but I can not see how that is done.


To create a spoiler hidden, you put the word spoiler in brackets at the beginning, and [/ with closed bracket around the word again, at the end. [/spoiler] whatever you write, this goes at the end. 
Voila!



Spoiler



I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> To create a spoiler hidden, you put the word spoiler in brackets at the beginning, and [/ with closed bracket around the word again, at the end. [/spoiler] whatever you write, this goes at the end.
> Voila!
> 
> 
> ...


I have interpreted what you wrote into several different methods and tried them and nothing works for me.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jimmie57 said:


> I have interpreted what you wrote into several different methods and tried them and nothing works for me





Spoiler



Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."

"I love Fred Willard," Albert Brooks wrote after Willard was caught in a compromising position in a Hollywood film theater. "He's a great guy. For his birthday I'm getting him a den and a computer."





Spoiler



<-- backet for beginning. *Bracket for end -->*



Take a look inside the spoiler _*after quoting a post *_with a working one inside it. That should be easier than my clumsy attempt at it.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The red is what I was doing wrong. I put the hash mark between the 2 spoilers and the text.
Ha Ha. It does not show the red when I close the post.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jimmie57 said:


> The red is what I was doing wrong. I put the hash mark between the 2 spoilers and the text.
> Ha Ha. It does not show the red when I close the post.
> 
> Thanks for the help.


Glad to help!

I didn't see anything in red. (nor a spoiler if you put one in.)



Spoiler



Edmund Blackadder and Baldrick converse:

EB: *"First Name?"*
B: "I'm not sure."
EB: "Come on, you MUST have a first name."
B: "It might be 'Sod Off'."
EB: "Sod Off??"
B: "Yeah, when I was a young lad playing in the gutter, I used to say to all the other snipes, "*Hello, my name's Baldrick"*. And they'd say, "Yes we know, *Sod Off, Baldrick" *

_- Blackadder and Baldrick filling out an application form_.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Glad to help!
> 
> I didn't see anything in red. (nor a spoiler if you put one in.)
> 
> ...


I fixed my fist post in this thread .


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

RBA said:


> Maybe this one will catch on and last longer than the last two.





lwilli201 said:


> What were the last two?





MysteryMan said:


> CSI Miami and CSI New York.


If RBA is referring to CSI Miami and New York, didn't those two last around ten years each? While not as long as the original, I think they were both considered very successful.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

trh said:


> If RBA is referring to CSI Miami and New York, didn't those two last around ten years each? While not as long as the original, I think they were both considered very successful.


CSI Miami 2002-2012, CSI New York 2004-2013.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

They were. At one point, "Miami" was the most viewed program on the planet.

I just watched the CSI ep "Kitty" as a warmup for Cyber. I was surprised at how great PA is. Her character is annoying as hell, but man is she good at portraying her. There was a 5 sec clip of her on The Oscars that immediately showed us why she should (and did) win for that part. Girl can act. I always had a major crush on her sister, who sadly she does not resemble. The production was also pretty good at making her appear about 40 lbs lighter than she really is.

But that is where the admiration ends; if the show is about the same as this crossover pilot, I think they are going to have issues. In the day of the internet, it is a bold move to try to mount such a show, because there are critics everywhere that will tear you down. Problem there is, they deserve it. They way deserve it. I can't remember when a show made me throw my hands up and say WTF? as much, or want to pull an Elvis and start taking potshots at my flatscreen.

We understand suspending disbelief; long ago we had to buy in to the ridiculous notion of CSIs interviewing perps and slapping on cuffs and busting down doors, gun in hand, but we bought in just to get on with it. I love CSI, mostly because it it a show I can watch without using my brain, and if I'm tired and sleepy, its a good one to watch. _Castle_ is much better; _The Good Wife _is much better. _Elementary_...I could go on. But you have to think to watch a real show like that. You can't be sleepy and tired and preoccupied.

But "Kitty" made my brain hurt, because I could not stomach the level of preposterousness. My 8-year old nephew could see through this in his sleep. I have never seen so much fantasy in a single episode; it makes me wonder why it isn't classified as Science Fiction, because all of the science here is exactly that; unbelievable fairy-dust fiction, and enough to spoil any chance of me buying into the premise or the execution, because it feels more like a giant slap in the face and an insult to even average intelligence.

Back to PA's character, she is like Horatio Caine all over again; larger than life, full of herself, and really annoying. She starts pontificating and holding court with the room of LV CSIs immediately before even being introduced, as if she is expected to school them. Maybe Horatio Caine on steroids. The hubris is deafening. At least Horatio Caine was played down and his personality was reserved. Horatio did not know his ubiquitous clever line into the title and ripping off his sunglasses was that annoying, or would end up being a self-parody caricature of the role, because in his own mind he was humble and gentle.

Not "Ryan", she is balls to the wall. It is fun to see PA play her so deliciously and chew up all the scenery in the process, but that will get very old, very fast, and it is still very annoying.

Actually, it would have been really great if _just once_, Horatio Caine looked up from the corpse, started to clean his sunglasses, paused, shrugged and then said "I got nothin'".


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

1st ep; possibly the worst TV show in recent memory.

It is probably futile to nit pick, but these nits are the size of boulders.

For instance, a baby monitor is a camera and microphone with a video encoder married to a wifi hotspot, with a user interface. This model also has some embedded lullaby files and a speaker. But a baby monitor does not have and does not need a decoder, which would be necessary even if the dark net online baby auction ironically got streamed to it, the chances of which would be one in a gazillion in the first place. Voices emanating from a baby monitor is pure fantasy and severe plot manipulation used to sell the premise.

Also, the team thought that they were clever by shutting down the baby monitor company that had the security breach in its products, because that would make the baby snatchers desperate and they would screw up and use a location-identifiable game console to try to extort them into putting the company back into business. But 45,000 baby monitors from this company were already in the wild, and shutting down the company can hardly shut down the baby monitors, so there is a gigantic fault in the logic there.

And even if that would have been effective, isn't it just as easy to post a video on any social media site instead of on an obscure game console?

And if you suspect that shutting down this company might be effective, especially after the way they stressed the urgency of catching these bad guys, why not just shut it down immediately, instead of putting your hostile $#!+head tech on a plane to Chicago to see if they really were hacked? That might save countless kidnapped babies that would have been lost by waiting for the tech to wind his way through the airport and go do his thing at the company first. That they ever caught the bad guys at all was due to pure dumb luck, and I do mean dumb. Nothing Ryan and her crew did was instrumental here, or even the least bit clever. Or techy.

That's just three of dozens.

The closest thing to this show is _Scorpion_, which is a pretty good show and excels in every category in a much more successful and believable manner, with a likeable cast and real, compelling drama. So even though that is the closest thing to it, Cyber is about the furthest thing from being successful in any of those categories. It is just ******-chillingly bad. I felt like I needed a shower after viewing it.

This show was a really, really bad idea from the start, and the execution is really, really bad as well. The supporting cast are just a bunch of pompous unlikeable ciphers that bring nothing interesting to the table. The acting is almost as bad as the writing. BowWow's reaction to Ryan telling him that if he screwed up just once he would serve a 5 year prison sentence for his hacking crimes caused him to react like that was a giant surprise to him. We have to assume it wasn't, since he probably sat through a long trial and was told this face to face by the judge during sentencing, but BowWow looked like he'd just been slapped in the face. Obviously he was cast not for his ability to act or portray a character, but because the producers were desperate to attach a celeb name to the product that might have some desperate effect on wooing the 12-29 demo. Mission accomplished (not). And the production music is supposed to evoke "tech", but ends up being about as annoying as could ever be imaginable. I could break the internet listing everything wrong with this show.

But instead of listing all of the bad things about this show, here is a list of all of the good and positive things:

1........

OK, I guess there aren't any good or positive things about this show.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I watched it. 

The "You have GOT to be KIDDING me!" moment was when they were "checking the code" in the servers and the hacked code showed up in red versus the 'good' green code - except that you wouldn't have SOURCE CODE IN THERE!!


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I did not watch it but after reading Broadcast Engineer's review, I probably never will. It would appear that it is not based on good science. This brings up the question, do most of the viewers care. Do most viewers believe these things as fact or do they care or write it off as pure fiction. Personally I see bad science of TV as a bad thing. IMHO.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

It did have one good thing....the theme music was another Who song.....and that's as far as it got.....


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

lwilli201 said:


> I did not watch it but after reading Broadcast Engineer's review, I probably never will. It would appear that it is not based on good science. This brings up the question, do most of the viewers care. Do most viewers believe these things as fact or do they care or write it off as pure fiction. Personally I see bad science of TV as a bad thing. IMHO.


Thanks. What is sad is that they probably don't care. But bad science on a TV show does not exist in a vacuum simply as bad science; it also implies lazy research and lazy writing. And that typically works out to be the case.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

elaclair said:


> It did have one good thing....the theme music was another Who song.....and that's as far as it got.....


Agreed. I'm going a little OT here, but yes, and that was one of their best songs. Interestingly, Pete Townshend, who is probably happy to keep seeing the checks roll in, also thought this was one of their best songs. And he drew a line in the sand over it, making it a career watershed event. When "I Can See For Miles" did not break into the top 20 for singles, he was devastated, and that was the moment he decided to go long form and concentrate on theme albums, like Tommy. Also, "Who's Next", possibly their best album, was comprised of songs that were not designed to climb the charts as much as to be individual enough to add context in a long-form album-oriented format. IOW, The Who succeeded by not chasing the charts and what the industry wanted and expected, but by chasing the art.

But "Who Are You"? IMHO one of their worst songs, and I can't reach for the remote fast enough to wind through it after the ponderous crime scene assessment in Act One.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

I waded through the pilot and it was as bad or worse then noted above. I hated the camera work with it jumping in an out on people. Then there was the usual the suspend reality and watch them do amazing things. Deleted the season pass immediately.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Oh no, this is going to suck?

Let me ask a question, if you could unwatch it.....
If you were me and I have not wasted 44mins of my life yet?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

TomCat said:


> Thanks. What is sad is that they probably don't care. But bad science on a TV show does not exist in a vacuum simply as bad science; it also implies lazy research and lazy writing. And that typically works out to be the case.


Yes, but if the screen doesn't flash in full-screen letters, "ACCESS DENIED" or "ACCESS GRANTED", how would we know that the genius guessed the code or not??



I meant PW....


----------



## lyradd (Mar 20, 2006)

Watched half of the first episode, deleted it and the season pass.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'll give it a second episode because the first episodes usually suck compared to the rest on spin offs. they try and over do the first episode for shows like this. If the second is the same then it's toast.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I'll give it a second episode because the first episodes usually suck compared to the rest on spin offs. they try and over do the first episode for shows like this. If the second is the same then it's toast.


Ditto. First was a stinker, IMHO, but since I like Patricia Arquette, I'll give it one more shot.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The endless over the top dramatic elements: camera angles, music crescendos, one-liners (badly written to boot), and special transition effects all destroyed this episode for me. Not that I found much to like considering the horrible tech, as mentioned by others above. 

I'm hoping this is just bad pilot syndrome and a real episode will be better. And that is about all it's gonna get from me. One more episode to create something to like. If not, bye-bye.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

I am going to give it a second chance. The pilot of Scorpion was equally bad but it developed into a decent show.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Longrider,

If I recall, at least I liked a couple of _Scorpion's_ characters even in the pilot. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I just watched it and I like it.


----------



## Red Orc (Oct 11, 2011)

I think I'll pass.
I don't generally watch shows where they do nothing in the commercial but scream about how fantastic it is and how great the actors are and how many awards the actors have received.
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!
That's a DEAD give away of a crappy show that the network KNOWS is crappy.
And any way the whole CSI thing's been done to death and back again already


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

TomCat said:


> But "Who Are You"? IMHO one of their worst songs, and I can't reach for the remote fast enough to wind through it after the ponderous crime scene assessment in Act One.


Greyhounds do a thing called "Rooing", basically it's their singing. Both my hounds will pop their heads up and start to Roo as soon as "Who are you" starts. What makes it even more cute, is that they will both perk their ears on ANY Who song, but only Roo to that one song.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

So, they are 'roo-whoers' huh? 

I'd even watch a youtube segment of that if kept short, say under a couple of minutes! Please post link if you do.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

I'll try and grab a video of them the next time it's on....


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)




----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

Yup, that's what they sound like....I have a soprano and a tenor.....


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I am now clear on this show - bad writing, bad directing, bad acting. It reminds me of why we quit watching "CSI: MIami". Patricia Arquette can be used effectively as the lead in a show, but it has to be written for her strengths. And I won't even start on the tech side of the "Cyber" plot. Did anyone at CBS look at this show?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

phrelin said:


> ...It reminds me of why we quit watching "CSI: MIami". ..


Oh that is so exactly it. My largest problem with Miami was how seriously it took itself. It also had a narrow view of offenders, a haughty, priggish, unforgiving attitude of defenders of justice towards offenders, and not the least hint of humor, or any other emotion. They were like The Borg in how devoid of humanity they were, which made them all very unlikable. I'm not sure why I watched it for as long as I did.

Always liked CSI and NY, tho.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

elaclair said:


> ...Both my hounds will pop their heads up and start to Roo as soon as "Who are you" starts. What makes it even more cute, is that they will both perk their ears on ANY Who song, but only Roo to that one song.


Well, now that just really made my day.

It also makes me like the song a little bit more. I will think of your hounds every time I watch the remaining CSI eps on my DVR.

While still Off Topic, just sayin', but Roger Daltrey might be the most under-rated Rock Band front man ever, something I have only come to realize in the last few years. Download Baba O'Reilly and see if you don't agree; that is a billion-dollar vocalist working at top form. I put him up there with Jagger, Plant, Steven Tyler, and James Brown.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

#2 was better than the pilot, but I don't think it will get good enough to watch. The acting just seems like they are reading from a script. It doesn't sound natural at all to me.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I want this to be good. I really do. So I might give it one more shot to at least be decent.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

I gave it a chance and watched the next episode. Sadly, I was reminded of a line from an old Herman's Hermits song....."second verse, same as the first"........


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Hmm... KUTV in Salt Lake did not show the scheduled episode, "Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes" last night. They ran an old episode for some reason. I'll try to call them tomorrow to find out more. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

KUTV called me back. Apparently with the games running late, CBS protocol is for affiliates to run the episode that is downloaded earning in the morning. He was not sure why it wasn't the same episode that ran that night.

Thankfully, CBS already has it on their website and we watched it last night anyway.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

I started watching the pilot and didn't like it.Being that it was renewed for a second season with Ted Danson on board, I decided to give the show another try and set up a season pass for it on TiVo. I've watched a few episodes and it is certainly better than the pilot was. That's not saying much.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I am_ trying_ to like the show but the jury is still out. Because of CBS Sunday night football,
the adjusted schedule messes with me, particularly with the later shows. Last Sunday's
shows ran almost an hour later than the normal 7:00pm - 11:00pm time frame, with "CSI:
Cyber" ending at 11:58pm, almost midnight. I do have recording capability, and yes, I
padded the end of 'Cyber' so I could keep my usual bedtime of 11:00pm but, frankly, by
the next day I had lost interest in viewing the program.

On a related topic, I think taking _four_ hours to play a televised football game, or any game
for that matter, is ridiculous, if not outrageous. Perhaps the NFL, in cooperation with broad-
casters should consider adopting the game clock rules of professional soccer where the
game, with timeouts and half-time is typically played in less than three hours. I recall, a while
back, hearing someone involved with NFL football say that the actual playing time of a game
averages only 11 minutes!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

If ratings mean anything, CBS is currently airing the last season of "CSI: Cyber." It does gain in DVR viewing but the numbers only rise from dismal to terrible and CBS doesn't rely on DVR viewing numbers. Of course, CEO Les Moonves may have a thing for Patricia Arquette.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I've never quite understood why it is that Fox always seems to be able to get all of its NFL programming completely out of the way by prime time _every_ Sunday, but for some reason CBS isn't able to do that most Sundays (no matter which sport, either)!


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I've never quite understood why it is that Fox always seems to be able to get all of its NFL programming completely out of the way by prime time _every_ Sunday, but for some reason CBS isn't able to do that most Sundays (no matter which sport, either)!


60 Minutes airs an hour earlier than Fox shows.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Locally, for some incredible reason, the local station expected the game starting at 2:20pm to be done in less than 3 hours--and schedule local news at 5:00pm. The average game is 3 hours and change. (I don't have this season's or last season's number handy.) And the new overtime rules only increase the average as both teams could be required to have a turn. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

David Ortiz said:


> 60 Minutes airs an hour earlier than Fox shows.


Yeah, I guess there's one show they're never gonna "lop" or move to another day or time slot. (Why mess with anything that still gets any kind of ratings?)

That, and probably not much concern for ET/CT DVR users. It's the viewers' own fault for not watching live, or staying with CBS to find out 10PM E show may be late (or not even aired, in some cases).

There's probably much more that goes (or _doesn't_ go) into it than I'll ever know...

Thanks.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Nick said:


> On a related topic, I think taking _four_ hours to play a televised football game, or any game
> for that matter, is ridiculous, if not outrageous. Perhaps the NFL, in cooperation with broad-
> casters should consider adopting the game clock rules of professional soccer where the
> game, with timeouts and half-time is typically played in less than three hours. I recall, a while
> ...


Agree! I would like to see them adopt a 30 minute quarter with a running clock. That gives them 40 minutes for commercials and gets the game over in 3 hours.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Wall Street Journal (and others) have published articles on the average time: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406



> On a related topic, I think taking _four_ hours to play a televised football game, or any game
> for that matter, is ridiculous, if not outrageous. Perhaps the NFL, in cooperation with broad-
> casters should consider adopting the game clock rules of professional soccer where the
> game, with timeouts and half-time is typically played in less than three hours. I recall, a while
> ...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Agree! I would like to see them adopt a 30 minute quarter with a running clock. That gives them 40 minutes for commercials and gets the game over in 3 hours.


lol, you can't change a sport that has existed for 50+ years just because you're tired of missing your TV shows...


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

RunnerFL said:


> lol, you can't change a sport that has existed for 50+ years just because you're tired of missing your TV shows...


50 years or not, there is no virtue in longevity. Frankly, I couldn't care less about professional
football. If you like taking four hours out of your life to watch 11 minutes of action and over an
hour of commercials, then good for you. lol

Here's an idea: why don't we remand professional sports broadcasts to the dedicated sports
channels and leave the broadcast networks for those of us who prefer other programming?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Nick said:


> 50 years or not, there is no virtue in longevity. *Frankly, I couldn't care less about professional*
> *football.*


Methinks most of us could have predicted this...



Nick said:


> If you like taking four hours out of your life to watch 11 minutes of action and over an
> hour of commercials, then good for you. lol
> 
> Here's an idea: why don't we remand professional sports broadcasts to the dedicated sports
> channels and leave the broadcast networks for those of us who prefer other programming?


Here's another idea: please don't bully, shame, or otherwise denigrate what others enjoy to watch.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The length of games is for more commercials. 

The fix for having issues with evening programming is to alter what is shown and when from the games to the shows at night. There are ways to get around this they just don't seem to want to look at them.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> The length of games is for more commercials.
> 
> The fix for having issues with evening programming is to alter what is shown and when from the games to the shows at night. There are ways to get around this they just don't seem to want to look at them.


We know the average NFL game is going to take 3:12. (Based on 2013 stats I could find.) So if anyone tries to schedule anything before 7:37pm ET for a 4:25pm start time, they are knowingly causing a problem.

Here, this week, both CBS and Fox have a bumper show of NFL highlights scheduled. Then local news on the CBS, since it is a 2pm MT start time.

As to the "11 minutes of activity time", clearly thems doing that measurement don't understand what goes on prior to the snap of the ball. The shifts, the adjustments, the gamesmanship leading to the snap itself. That is action an average fan can understand.

A very discerning fan can also follow the substitutions by both teams and the initial formations.

I found this quote whilst researching average game length, "It's like saying a 2 hour chess match only has 2 minutes of action because we only count when the pieces are being moved.", kryonik on reddit: 

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1v3xba/_/ceokkfq

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Point made, and taken to the extreme, virtually any competition
could be reduced to just _one second_ and be settled by the flip of
a coin, but what fun would that be?

If I offended anyone in my rant, I sincerely apologize. I'm just a
tad weary of having sports messing with the tv schedule. Again,
isn't that why they have all those sports channels?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

While I agree that the 11 minutes of playing time is a meaningless statistic what I would like to see is a comparison of a game 15 years ago to a game today. How long was the broadcast, how much time was spent on the game in any form (play action, sideline shots, owners in the booth, cheerleaders, whatever), how much time on highlights of other games, and how much time in commercials. I think it would look something like this: ( I am just making these numbers up)

2000: broadcast 3:05 game time 2:02 highlights 0:05 commercials 0:58
2015: broadcast 3:30 game time 1:51 highlights 0:15 commercials 1:24


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Everyone is entitled to a good, old-fashioned rant from time to time. 

I blame the overly aggressive schedulers. There is no reason CBS has to schedule that poorly. Or the NFL can work with everyone to start the cycle at 12:30pm ET--which they do during playoffs. Especially if CBS won't count DVR users in their decision-making, they shouldn't force more people to use them with late padding. 

As for sports--it is the big draw for weekend afternoons all year round. Racing, Baseball, Football, Golf, and Tennis. Don't think the big networks are going to give up those DVR proof ad machines. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

longrider said:


> While I agree that the 11 minutes of playing time is a meaningless statistic what I would like to see is a comparison of a game 15 years ago to a game today. How long was the broadcast, how much time was spent on the game in any form (play action, sideline shots, owners in the booth, cheerleaders, whatever), how much time on highlights of other games, and how much time in commercials. I think it would look something like this: ( I am just making these numbers up)
> 
> 2000: broadcast 3:05 game time 2:02 highlights 0:05 commercials 0:58
> 2015: broadcast 3:30 game time 1:51 highlights 0:15 commercials 1:24


From what I recall and otherwise found in my research, when the average game gets longer than 3:15, the NFL looks for adjustments. The playclock has been reduces from 45 seconds between plays to 40, the game clock restarts after incomplete passes and out of bounds, and other changes to handling penalties to keep the game length below 3:15. Alas, I couldn't find any stats for 2014 or to date in 2015.

Previous "snap-to-whistle" timings have shown average games to be 13 minutes, though the few games the Wall Street Journal used was only 11 minutes. Don't know how accurate either study was--though the WSJ was clearly written by someone who didn't like football. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> lol, you can't change a sport that has existed for 50+ years just because you're tired of missing your TV shows...


Has the game been the same for the past 50 years or has coverage stretched out?
I believe the NFL is sensitive to the length of the game and understands that if the length expands they will lose fans.

That being said, TV programmers should do better at scheduling. It is not acceptable to have everything run 10-60 minutes late each week because of football or golf or any other afternoon sport. PLAN a window where the game will fit plus postgame and pad the postgame if the game runs short or ends on time. Late running the shows cannot be helping their ratings.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> lol, you can't change a sport that has existed for 50+ years just because you're tired of missing your TV shows...


Sure you can. And they have done it before. It has been several years, but the clock used to stop when a player went out of bounds and not start until the next snap. Now it stops, but is restarted when placed ready for play. This was a change to help shorten games to the 3-hour window.

And 47 years ago they didn't postpone prime-time, they instead cut the end of the game off to the eastern US.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Unfortunately the NFL cant do anything about the commercial time-outs and that is what is causing the expamding broadcast. Yes, I know that NFL is some of the best commercial time out there since 98% of the viewers watch live and this is not going to change. I agree that what needs to be done is just lengthen the broadcast window so it ends on time with everything they do now. For CBS move 60 minutes from 7 to 8 and cut out an hour of other programming.

We are lucky here in Mountain time in that what gets squeezed out is the local stations early news and the evening block is all on time. It is fun for the station as we get the east coast feed and delay it so the operator has to be ready anytime the network inserts a graphic that shows will be starting late he overlays it with a graphic that our shows will be on time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Nick said:


> 50 years or not, there is no virtue in longevity. Frankly, I couldn't care less about professional
> football. If you like taking four hours out of your life to watch 11 minutes of action and over an
> hour of commercials, then good for you. lol
> 
> ...


Wow, nice personal jab there...

The answer to your second question... They aren't on the dedicated sports networks because those networks aren't broadcast OTA. There are still numerous people in this day and age that rely on OTA and those numbers boost ratings, sell merchandise and get top advertising dollars for the networks. The NFL is the highest rated thing out there. Do you you really think CBS, FOX and NBC are going to put it where people can't see it??


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Nick said:


> I'm just a tad weary of having sports messing with the tv schedule.


You should be used to it by now.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Has the game been the same for the past 50 years or has coverage stretched out?
> I believe the NFL is sensitive to the length of the game and understands that if the length expands they will lose fans.
> 
> That being said, TV programmers should do better at scheduling. It is not acceptable to have everything run 10-60 minutes late each week because of football or golf or any other afternoon sport. PLAN a window where the game will fit plus postgame and pad the postgame if the game runs short or ends on time. Late running the shows cannot be helping their ratings.


You can't PLAN a live event... It's live, it's life... Games run over and have for years.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> And 47 years ago they didn't postpone prime-time, they instead cut the end of the game off to the eastern US.


Hah, the "Heidi Bowl" happened once... Cutting off games like that was not standard practice.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> You can't PLAN a live event... It's live, it's life... Games run over and have for years.


You can plan windows for live events, which is James' point. Schedule buffer shows that are adjustable to the timing of the games at hand. Fox runs NFL highlights and analysis between the games and the Prime-Time content. CBS could do the same--though they've been delaying content for so long, they seem to be stuck in that mode. Maybe they think that delaying shows keeps them DVR proof--in that people will watch the delayed content rather than DVR. (Fools.) 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

longrider said:


> Unfortunately the NFL cant do anything about the commercial time-outs and that is what is causing the expamding broadcast.


The NFL gave those time-outs to TV. The TV networks have no authority over game play other than that given by the NFL.



RunnerFL said:


> You can't PLAN a live event... It's live, it's life... Games run over and have for years.


Perhaps you cannot plan live events, but I can. The networks can as well. They have a general idea of how long a game will last. Instead of planning to fail at the end of every broadcast and "run over" they could allot more time to the post game show. If the game runs long the post game is shortened to just the contractual elements. If the game is short the sportscasters vamp or provide highlights/coverage of other games. Anything but trying to fit a 3:30 game into a 3hr slot and acting surprised that the game ran over.

Anyone who knows the approximate time it takes to cover a game can plan an appropriate window.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Perhaps you cannot plan live events, but I can. The networks can as well. They have a general idea of how long a game will last. Instead of planning to fail at the end of every broadcast and "run over" they could allot more time to the post game show. If the game runs long the post game is shortened to just the contractual elements. If the game is short the sportscasters vamp or provide highlights/coverage of other games. Anything but trying to fit a 3:30 game into a 3hr slot and acting surprised that the game ran over.
> 
> Anyone who knows the approximate time it takes to cover a game can plan an appropriate window.


Approximate and plan are 2 completely different terms... You can't plan anything live, period. No matter what you do there will be events that run past your planned time. For instance NASCAR races slated to start at 7:30pm that don't start until 11pm due to rain... College football games that they stop, for an undetermined time, due to lightening... A track dryer igniting on track and burning a hole in Daytona Speedway mid race... I could go on... You can't plan a live event's time.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> Approximate and plan are 2 completely different terms... You can't plan anything live, period. No matter what you do there will be events that run past your planned time. For instance NASCAR races slated to start at 7:30pm that don't start until 11pm due to rain... College football games that they stop, for an undetermined time, due to lightening... A track dryer igniting on track and burning a hole in Daytona Speedway mid race... I could go on... You can't plan a live event's time.


Yes, I can. As noted, anyone can certainly do better than schedule a 3:30 minimum length broadcast into a three hour block. The exceptions should be exceptional circumstances ... not weekly failures. We are not talking about NFL games that ran over due to extreme circumstances ... we are talking about programmers who decided to fail.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Hah, the "Heidi Bowl" happened once... Cutting off games like that was not standard practice.


Happened just last week.  Was watching the Broncos/Browns game and they were almost at the end and were tied. The network broadcast cut off so they could show the San Diego/GB game.   

I know not exactly the same, but similar.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You can plan windows for live events, which is James' point. Schedule buffer shows that are adjustable to the timing of the games at hand. Fox runs NFL highlights and analysis between the games and the Prime-Time content. CBS could do the same--though they've been delaying content for so long, they seem to be stuck in that mode. Maybe they think that delaying shows keeps them DVR proof--in that people will watch the delayed content rather than DVR. (Fools.)


LOL. The problem is that Fox's Prime-time is only 3 hours vs. CBS's which is 4. In the fall, CBS's just needs to go to 3 hours on Sunday Evening. They aren't keeping the football views into the 10pm hour anyway.

The other part of the problem is that the afternoon games used to start at 4:05, now some don't start until 4:25.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Not sure how the number of hours in prime time is the issue when both netowkr a start their Sunday prime time lineup at the same time. CBS just goes an hour latter. It's only be helpful to CBS if they shaved an hour off if they did it for the first hour. Yet FOX doesn't seem to have the issue and they start at the same time as CBS so....


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Too much cyber, very little real police work. The show is not balance anywhere near real life.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Not sure how the number of hours in prime time is the issue when both netowkr a start their Sunday prime time lineup at the same time. CBS just goes an hour latter. It's only be helpful to CBS if they shaved an hour off if they did it for the first hour. Yet FOX doesn't seem to have the issue and they start at the same time as CBS so....


Actually Fox starts Sunday with _NFL on Fox, _a half hour of bumper that solves the problem. CBS goes straight into _60 minutes_, whereby they run into problems in the Eastern half of the US.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Too much cyber, very little real police work. The show is not balance anywhere near real life.


Please dont tell me you are actually trying to get this thread back on topic?? Sorry, will never happen


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually Fox starts Sunday with _NFL on Fox, _a half hour of bumper that solves the problem. CBS goes straight into _60 minutes_, whereby they run into problems in the Eastern half of the US.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Yep and is why if CBS would wake up and do the same they wouldn't have this issue most the time either. As has been said many times.

Granted there will be a game a year that may still take longer but not like it is now.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Yes, I can. As noted, anyone can certainly do better than schedule a 3:30 minimum length broadcast into a three hour block. The exceptions should be exceptional circumstances ... not weekly failures. We are not talking about NFL games that ran over due to extreme circumstances ... we are talking about programmers who decided to fail.


No matter how long you plan for game time there will always be times when the game runs over, people will complain, shows will be missed. It's part of life just like death and taxes...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Happened just last week.  Was watching the Broncos/Browns game and they were almost at the end and were tied. The network broadcast cut off so they could show the San Diego/GB game.
> 
> I know not exactly the same, but similar.


Probably because of a requirement for your local market to make the SD/GB game the priority. The game wasn't cut off here in FL.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> No matter how long you plan for game time there will always be times when the game runs over, people will complain, shows will be missed. It's part of life just like death and taxes...


So you plan for how to handle it. That is how you plan live events.

Right now the CBS plan is: 1) schedule in the east for 3:05, meaning on average things will run late
2) Run late, so the full prime schedule gets in
3) make it up at 3am.

Personally I think that is good planning to fail. Because I think knowingly slipping that many times is a failure.

A better plan would be to schedule 3:20 or 3:40 for a game, using the time via some form of relatively high value, flexible programming. What else happened in sports today? Or the news. NFL Highlights? Or _60 Minutes Extra. _Something so that most of the time the prime doesn't slip.

I don't mind a schedule that at least attempts to prevent a slip. Cuz I know every once in awhile, a game can run long--perhaps very long. Lightning, power problems, plus a protracted overtime could lead to a 4 hour or longer game. Once every 10 years. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Better scheduling would solve the majority of the problems. The occasional very long game is not an excuse to make no effort at all to come up with a workable schedule. "We are going to have one four hour game this fall ... so lets give all games a three hour window." That is planning to fail.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Probably because of a requirement for your local market to make the SD/GB game the priority. The game wasn't cut off here in FL.


You're probably right as I was watching it on the LA CBS feed.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Yep and is why if CBS would wake up and do the same they wouldn't have this issue most the time either. As has been said many times.
> 
> Granted there will be a game a year that may still take longer but not like it is now.


Games are longer because there are mo' commercials.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> Games are longer because there are mo' commercials.


Longer than when? 1919? Yes. 2000? Nope.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You sure they don't have e more commercials and longer timeouts Tom? Seems that they do in the last seven years or so. Not a lot but a few and made some rule changes to speed up the play time so that it should make the game itself about the same length.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> Longer than when? 1919? Yes. 2000? Nope.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Yup, I remember way back in '19 we had to watch football on a tiny tricked out crystal radio -- those were the days!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> You sure they don't have e more commercials and longer timeouts Tom? Seems that they do in the last seven years or so. Not a lot but a few and made some rule changes to speed up the play time so that it should make the game itself about the same length.


Am I positive? No, not really. I'm just judging by the average game length stats. It does seem that some games have more or longer commercial breaks, perhaps the Sunday night and Monday night games?

And the NFL no longer takes commercial breaks on every timeout or on every possession change. Sometimes they will go straight from punt into next play.

Yet, they seem to be more likely to break for further review of plays. Since there are more of those, that will lengthen the games. So maybe the NFL has switched commercial breaks from timeouts to instant replays?

With the new overtime rules, games will average longer. And it feels like we've had more overtimes this season.  And overtimes will introduce more commercials too.

We have had more penalty stoppages this season, which will slow the game down as well. As the players get used to the new rules, it seems penalties go down toward the end of the season.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Somehow Fox managed a 4:25 start time and a long injury timeout and was still able to air part of their postgame show and get the WS started on time.

CBS are you watching?


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Last night episode again was not real, especially after dealing with my own docs earlier that day about their lack of understanding of basic computing with a patient portal.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Last night episode again was not real, especially after dealing with my own docs earlier that day about their lack of understanding of basic computing with a patient portal.


If you're holding your breath waiting for anything on CSI:Cyber to be close to reality you'll pass out from lack of oxygen.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> If you're holding your breath waiting for anything on CSI:Cyber to be close to reality you'll pass out from lack of oxygen.


True! I think I've given up on the series. Such a waste of talent!


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Cholly said:


> True! I think I've given up on the series. Such a waste of talent!


The writers appear to be in over their heads.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Back _off_ topic, (heh heh), other than moving to Arizona (why not?) there is a solution for those who are missing CBS shows, which is to subscribe to their streaming platform (or just torre.....woops, I can't say that). Who knows, maybe annoying phrelin and the rest is part of a dastardly plan by CBS to convert us all to cord-cutters.

It would be nice (not holding my breath) if Tribune and the like could send late updates so that a DVR could know when to start recording the show right after a late game. That is possible; we have the technology. We just aren't apparently interested in doing that.

OK, I get the chess analogy. If you only count the time that a pitch is being thrown, you can argue there is only about 3 minutes of action in a MLB game, too. Except there is a ton of mental strategy between each pitch and each play. With NFL? Probably not so much.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Was it pulled Sunday?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Apparently. It was scheduled 30 minutes late but the previous shows ran 30 minutes later than that.
My local CBS cut to the 11pm news at 11pm (instead of 11:30 as shown in the guide).


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

It must have been as it did not record on the western affiliate either.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

Just checked mine and it recorded on time. I'm in Spokane, Washington.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Supramom2000 said:


> Just checked mine and it recorded on time. I'm in Spokane, Washington.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Have you checked what was recorded? Mine was 8 minutes late--and not the episode scheduled. It was the fake Canadian drug episode instead.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

It started on time, but I haven't double checked which episode recorded. Does the episode info match the recording? My info shows the correct episode but I'm not at home to check actual episode.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Supramom2000 said:


> It started on time, but I haven't double checked which episode recorded. Does the episode info match the recording? My info shows the correct episode but I'm not at home to check actual episode.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


My episode info did not match the recording. There wasn't an update to DIRECTV in time. (If an update was even sent out.)

Now, Salt Lake is a different kind of area. CBS uplinks an episode early in the day for Mountain Time viewers, our local affiliate is to use that if the East/Central feed is delayed. (Normally the local records the East feed and rebroadcasts that.) So the pre-sent episode might be different than the one you got. Or perhaps CBS skipped this week altogether.

Last time, I had to go to CBS.com to view the episode, but so far, the episode that was supposed to be last night's is not on CBS.com.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't watch this... but I do watch the Good Wife. While watching The Good Wife (east coast) last night, which started 30 min late, I saw a scroll that my local affiliate wasn't going to run CSI Cyber at all last night. They gave no indication of any potential airing at a different time. I don't know if that was a local decision OR a CBS decision for the east coast. Just FYI since I don't happen to watch the show but noticed.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

My episode was also the fake drug one. So no new episode here either.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Supramom2000 said:


> My episode was also the fee drug one. So no new episode here either.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Thanks for the confirmation.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> ...(Normally the local records the East feed and rebroadcasts that.) ...


Maybe in 1993. In 2015 it is pretty much in every network's infrastructure to provide a delayed feed separate from Eastern/Central for Mountain/Pacific affils.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

TomCat said:


> Maybe in 1993. In 2015 it is pretty much in every network's infrastructure to provide a delayed feed separate from Eastern/Central for Mountain/Pacific affils.


If that was the case why does our CBS local in Denver on Sundays always have to cover the message about late starting with one saying all programs will start on time?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TomCat said:


> Maybe in 1993. In 2015 it is pretty much in every network's infrastructure to provide a delayed feed separate from Eastern/Central for Mountain/Pacific affils.


Maybe in 2015, when I talk to one of the executives at the local station, they know what they are talking about. 

They provide a Pacific feed, but it is not like Eastern/Central, they need two feeds for Mountain/Pacific. The right coasties might be used to prime time being 9-midnite, but Mountain Timezoners don't like to stay up that late for prime time. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Remind me.

On a regular day (not Sunday's)

Prime time is

Eastern 8 to 11
Central 7 to 10

Mountain 7 to 10

Pacific 8 to 11

And they did that in general by broadcasting eastern and central at the same time and then detains mountain and also seating pacific separately. 

Today I'm not surprised they would send different time zones the shows earlier in the day to Los up and show rather than doing a live rebroadcast so to speak.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Remind me.
> 
> On a regular day (not Sunday's)
> 
> ...


With the commercials being updated moments before being broadcast, even updating across timezones, they won't preload shows unnecessarily. Especially the commercials for that day's late night shows once they have been taped.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Today I'm not surprised they would send different time zones the shows earlier in the day to Los up and show rather than doing a live rebroadcast so to speak.


There is something on most networks throughout the day (soaps, sports, etc). Central uses the Eastern feed ... the Pacific is separate. The Mountain feed seems to be the odd one out. Most of the US population are in Eastern and Central (47% Eastern, 32.9% Central or about 80% served by the one feed). 14.1% of the population is in the Pacific time zone. 5.4% are in Mountain time.

Live games on Sunday change those feeds.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My DVR captured CSI: Cyber last night ... sort of.

The show started 30 minutes before the scheduled time slot, immediately following Undercover Boss.
The middle show (Madam Secretary) was not present.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

James Long said:


> My DVR captured CSI: Cyber last night ... sort of.
> 
> The show started 30 minutes before the scheduled time slot, immediately following Undercover Boss.
> The middle show (Madam Secretary) was not present.


Same here, but this show is so bad I just deleted it. I will not do VoD to get the full episode. Between crappy performances & CBS floating it, this show doesn't have a chance.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

longrider said:


> If that was the case why does our CBS local in Denver on Sundays always have to cover the message about late starting with one saying all programs will start on time?


There is a simple, if very stupid, answer to that, which I probably have ranted about before.

If you want to opt out of the brief primer explaining net delay feeds, jump down a few paragraphs. The separate feeds are created by taking the final output of the feed that goes to Eastern/Central, which has the graphics on it. That is put into a delay server, so that it spits out the exact same content, exactly one, two, or three hours later (all three feeds can be created at once by a single sever), each of which goes into a different feed.

Depending on where you are located, your station takes the appropriate feed. Central takes the live NY feed and starts at 7. Mountain usually takes the one-hour tap to start at 7; Pacific usually takes the three-hour tap, to start at 8. Some west coast stations get a two-hour delay, and opt to start at 7. Arizona was last to get separate feeds, because each network only has 2 or 3 stations there, and the time shift due to Ben Franklin's brilliant DST idea, is ignored. And for some reason, probably due to different commercials being inserted regionally for that feed, Arizona stations were not allowed to take the two-hour delayed feed live in the summer even though it was technically synched in time.

Back in the day, there was one net-supplied 3-hour-delayed second feed, to sync LA to 8 PM, but Mountain stations recorded the main feed on large 1-inch tape machines to enable them to play that back locally. Its a tricky procedure, because you had to use multiple tapes due to the fact that the feed was still coming in at the point that you needed to be playing it back. Ops got really good at synching the tapes so we could make a transparent, invisible, seamless switch that you could not see, 3 or 4 times every night.

Minor OTA nets like MyNet still require local delays in some parts of the country, and since linear TV is dying, probably will until the plug is pulled. Server delays are (relatively) simple to do, but there still needs to be sat or fiber infrastructure to backhaul net-based delays to the affiliates.

So originally, Central started prime an hour earlier than Eastern (live with it, Central, we're NYC and you're not), and Pacific used the delay feed to start at 8 PM (some cities on the west coast opt for 7 PM), and Mountain had to fend for itself by delaying locally, so that is why we have legacy start times of 7 PM some places, and 8 PM other places. Even the modern feed structure seems a little quaint in the days of streaming.

But today, the unintended graphics could be avoided completely, simply by patching the video chain around the final downstream keyer (squeezeback FX unit) that creates the graphic, and feeding _THAT_ to the delay server _INSTEAD_, meaning that while everything can operate as normal for eastern/central, the mountain/pacific feeds really do not need to have these graphics, and patching around them would take about 10 seconds of Precious Engineering Time to do. It is essentially a "tap-off" ahead of the graphics, known in the biz as a "clean feed", which dictates, since it has its own name, that it is a common practice and could easily be done; _could_, being the operative term here.

The concept of "creating a separate feed" would seem to imply that the content should be tailored uniquely for the different audience. But no.

There are a lot of idiotically bad decisions made in television, and this is just another one of them, just like not using the technology that we have to delay-start our DVRs in real time through Tribune. Basically, we are not flying first-class, folks, even though paying premium prices we're stuck way back in economy, and looking for a sharp knife to cut that cord once and for all.

My affiliate doesn't even bother to try to cover those messages, so feel privileged that yours does. I'm at a critical juncture where Alicia Flores is battling with Eli Gold over important campaign issues, when I am interrupted, 3 or 4 times per episode, by a blindingly-white bar at the bottom telling me when people that live 2000 miles away from me can expect the worst show ever on television, _Cyber,_ to start, something they think I care about deeply for some unknown insane reason. And they wonder why streaming is going to kill them dead very soon. Stop wondering, bear down, do a better job, linear TV.

The Chief Engineer of your CBS station should complain to CBS, because local station Chiefs always have tons of clout with corporate engineering (not). Good luck with that, Chief. They may very well do this patch-around for the Pacific feed; I have no way of knowing. But if you are in Mountain, nobody cares.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Thank you for the information, I honestly thought there was still just the 3 hour delay feed and Mountain time stations (the red-headed stepchild of the broadcast world) just had to deal with recording it. I remember dealing with the delays when I worked in broadcast ops 25 years ago and even much more recently during the analog/digital conversion when everybody was simulcasting both signals I saw all the complaints from the Colorado Springs DMA that everything was HD except for prime time since the stations did not have the necessary servers, just the old tape machines. With it working as you describe I agree that it is stupid that the delay server doesn't get the clean feed.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Fun times. But you are in a great city, and everything is HD now. Same reason I never watched _Mad Men_ or _Breaking Bad_ (until later); DTV wouldn't carry AMC in HD until about 5 years ago, and I wasn't going to spend $3700 on a 60" Sony and then watch them blur it back up for me. Of course now you can get a much better HDTV for about $800.

I thought I would like to stay in television long enough to bracket old 2-inch tape and film, all the way to 4K. But it is starting to look like linear TV might be gone before they ever get a chance to put that infrastructure into place. Linear TV hasn't just been disrupted; its been replaced. All we hear are the echoes dying out.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TomCat said:


> Fun times. But you are in a great city, and everything is HD now. Same reason I never watched _Mad Men_ or _Breaking Bad_ (until later); DTV wouldn't carry AMC in HD until about 5 years ago, and I wasn't going to spend $3700 on a 60" Sony and then watch them blur it back up for me. Of course now you can get a much better HDTV for about $800.
> 
> I thought I would like to stay in television long enough to bracket old 2-inch tape and film, all the way to 4K. But it is starting to look like linear TV might be gone before they ever get a chance to put that infrastructure into place. Linear TV hasn't just been disrupted; its been replaced. All we hear are the echoes dying out.


You might make linear 4k, though probably not linear, broadcast, over the air 4k. That just looks way too messy with the incompatibilities.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

TomCat said:


> Fun times. But you are in a great city, and everything is HD now. Same reason I never watched _Mad Men_ or _Breaking Bad_ (until later); DTV wouldn't carry AMC in HD until about 5 years ago, and I wasn't going to spend $3700 on a 60" Sony and then watch them blur it back up for me. Of course now you can get a much better HDTV for about $800.
> 
> I thought I would like to stay in television long enough to bracket old 2-inch tape and film, all the way to 4K. But it is starting to look like linear TV might be gone before they ever get a chance to put that infrastructure into place. Linear TV hasn't just been disrupted; its been replaced. All we hear are the echoes dying out.


I remember 2" tape and film chains! (should I  or  ??) I agree with Tom that you will see linear 4k, just not OTA. As the required ATSC 3.0 standard is not backwards compatible I really dont see it happening. Broadcasters dont want the expense and we really dont have the channel space to simulcast and people would revolt if they had to replace their TVs again.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

On top of that, in my new theater, our eyes would not resolve 4K at the viewing distance anyway, so having it would be a waste of money. Unless I really just wanted to say I have a 4K projector.

But given the cheapness of digital storage, why is there not just one feed that the affiliates can grab, record and store for later playback? It could also be broadcast by the networks in the afternoon so the affiliates could program in all their commercials ahead of time.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> On top of that, in my new theater, our eyes would not resolve 4K at the viewing distance anyway, so having it would be a waste of money. Unless I really just wanted to say I have a 4K projector.
> 
> But given the cheapness of digital storage, why is there not just one feed that the affiliates can grab, record and store for later playback? It could also be broadcast by the networks in the afternoon so the affiliates could program in all their commercials ahead of time.


While you may or may not benefit from the 4k resolution, you will benefit from the richness of the wider color range and reproduction. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Herdfan said:


> ...But given the cheapness of digital storage, why is there not just one feed that the affiliates can grab, record and store for later playback? It could also be broadcast by the networks in the afternoon so the affiliates could program in all their commercials ahead of time.


There is no strategic advantage to inserting commercials ahead of time. It would be exceptionally cumbersome to do that and would have no benefit at all. Inserting them live through automation is super easy.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> While you may or may not benefit from the 4k resolution, you will benefit from the richness of the wider color range and reproduction.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


While I agree with you also regarding linear 4K, 4K itself has no advantage in wider color range or the reproduction of that. 4K is a protocol, and its job is to carry the info, not reproduce it. That is up to the TV to manage that.

While 4K will happen, is happening (as compare to 3D which started to happen and then died on the vine) the real advantages are not in 4K, but in things like WCG or wide color gamut (which does indeed imply wider color range) and HDR. Those things will improve viewing significantly while 4K in and of itself, will not.

And it is doubtful that broadcast will even ever carry 4K even if it become a _de facto_ standard, or the only standard, for acquisition. They have had a superior format available to them since 1997 (1080p60) which they have not even touched because the cost in bits per second so greatly outweighs any visual advantage, so to think that they are going to quadruple their delivery rate for the tiny advantage of 4k sort of doesn't reflect history.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

longrider said:


> I remember 2" tape and film chains! (should I  or  ??) I agree with Tom that you will see linear 4k, just not OTA. As the required ATSC 3.0 standard is not backwards compatible I really dont see it happening. Broadcasters dont want the expense and we really dont have the channel space to simulcast and people would revolt if they had to replace their TVs again.


The ATSC 3.0 standard is a really great standard. But so was ATSC 1.0, 20 years ago. Infrastructure changes like a glacier. Everything around it changes so quickly by comparison, that 2.0 was shelved before it could happen in time to be competitive with the rest of the marketplace. Joe Blow could go buy a HD camcorder at Best Buy long before most TV stations or cable stations were bringing us significant HD content.

So there are two interesting things about ATSC 3.0:

1. It may never happen, actually, because it may be obsolete and replaced by streaming before it ever gets birthed.

2. It is basically a version of TCP/IP, or essentially, its not really different than an internet protocol for streaming. The only thing that will be different is that they are going to try to do this over terrestrial transmitters rather than over the cloud. So rather than competing with streaming, they will be subsumed by the same technology, and will try to compete with it using the same technology that streaming uses today, just over an inferior infrastructure. And I say inferior not in a technical sense, but in a strategic sense. It makes sense for Google to have a single server farm that serves as the infrastructure to get them on the internet (and of course they have multiple farms for redundancy), but does it really make sense for NBC to recreate the same infrastructure for bringing TV to customers in Talahassee over and over again in Keokuk, and Bowling Green, and Cleveland, and 200 other markets just for the US alone? And have every other OTA network create their own separate infrastructure 200 times each? Maybe in 1949, and 1999, but not in 2019.

Why not just go all the way and use the infrastructure of the internet that is already there? That infrastructure gets better every day. Average bit rates for broadband doubled just last year. The top rate used to be 30 mb, now its over 100. The infrastructure of a terrestrial transmission to STB will simply stagnate, and is based on a fixed technology because of the need to have transmitters that can only amortize costs over 15 years, feeding a starfield world of STBs that also don't want to be replaced very quickly. This legacy issue is the same reason DISH is still trying to replace the old DISH 500 setups from the 90's in a lot of customer's homes.

So if 3.0 becomes a reality, the first year early adopters will get a STB (TVs will appear a year or so later), and that STB will essentially be nothing more than a glorified ROKU stick. And if broadcasters see this the way I do, they will give up the ghost, become users of the existing infrastructure of the cloud itself, and will become just one more player in the arena of Neflix and Crackle. Playing catchup. 3.0 or not.

3.0 may not even ever emerge as a separate entity. That suite of technologies is applicable to streaming also, so it all becomes one big blurry mess at some point, and linear gets subsumed and essentially disappears. The one thing left to set it apart is going OTA, and going OTA, which used to be the only infrastructure available, now becomes technically and strategically the worst idea out there.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

TomCat said:


> While I agree with you also regarding linear 4K, 4K itself has no advantage in wider color range or the reproduction of that. 4K is a protocol, and its job is to carry the info, not reproduce it. That is up to the TV to manage that.
> 
> While 4K will happen, is happening (as compare to 3D which started to happen and then died on the vine) the real advantages are not in 4K, but in things like WCG or wide color gamut (which does indeed imply wider color range) and HDR. Those things will improve viewing significantly while 4K in and of itself, will not.
> 
> And it is doubtful that broadcast will even ever carry 4K even if it become a _de facto_ standard, or the only standard, for acquisition. They have had a superior format available to them since 1997 (1080p60) which they have not even touched because the cost in bits per second so greatly outweighs any visual advantage, so to think that they are going to quadruple their delivery rate for the tiny advantage of 4k sort of doesn't reflect history.


4K does make a difference in and of itself. It makes a lot of difference for motion. You get a much smoother image moving across the screen that you can see vs a 1080 picture. At any distance that's not ridiculous.

As for your assertion they could have gone 1080p60 I think that's all about mpeg2 and what was available and what everyone had when it all launched. Had everyone waited for mpeg4 and used their brains for standards they would have all been 1080p60 or 720p only and nothing else. But the tech didn't let them squeeze that in back then and they don't want to send out a signal (moeg4 1080p60) that a massive amount of people wouldn't be able to receive or use because the tech is missing from way to many tvs today.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

TomCat said:


> While I agree with you also regarding linear 4K, 4K itself has no advantage in wider color range or the reproduction of that. 4K is a protocol, and its job is to carry the info, not reproduce it. That is up to the TV to manage that.
> 
> While 4K will happen, is happening (as compare to 3D which started to happen and then died on the vine) the real advantages are not in 4K, but in things like WCG or wide color gamut (which does indeed imply wider color range) and HDR. Those things will improve viewing significantly while 4K in and of itself, will not.
> 
> And it is doubtful that broadcast will even ever carry 4K even if it become a _de facto_ standard, or the only standard, for acquisition. They have had a superior format available to them since 1997 (1080p60) which they have not even touched because the cost in bits per second so greatly outweighs any visual advantage, so to think that they are going to quadruple their delivery rate for the tiny advantage of 4k sort of doesn't reflect history.


I think you're overselling 4k by calling it a protocol that merely carries info. TCP/IP is a protocol that doesn't specify the data contents. 4k does.

The 4k specifications enable features and reproductions that previous specifications do not. Whether or not those features are used is now a choice, whereas before it couldn't be done.

Similarly to how some filmmakers like a gritty look in picture quality or even black and white, they don't have to use the wider color range. Before color film techniques, they didn't have a choice of color. 

So, one could argue the HD 2.0 could introduce wide color gamut and other features--which is true. Yet they didn't. They went 4k, with WCG and HDR instead.

I don't expect over the air 4k anytime soon, mostly because the standards are so stupidly incompatible. When color TV was introduced, they wisely chose to keep it compatible with black and white. They couldn't do that with HD, understood. Yet when HD is uplifted to 4k, they should have found a way to remain compatible to the sets everyone recently switched to.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

inkahauts said:


> 4K does make a difference in and of itself. It makes a lot of difference for motion. You get a much smoother image moving across the screen that you can see vs a 1080 picture. At any distance that's not ridiculous.
> 
> As for your assertion they could have gone 1080p60 I think that's all about mpeg2 and what was available and what everyone had when it all launched. Had everyone waited for mpeg4 and used their brains for standards they would have all been 1080p60 or 720p only and nothing else. But the tech didn't let them squeeze that in back then and they don't want to send out a signal (moeg4 1080p60) that a massive amount of people wouldn't be able to receive or use because the tech is missing from way to many tvs today.


I have to disagree, inky, regarding 4K. And it is not a disagreement based on our opinions, because opinions are all in disagreement because each is different, by nature. It is a disagreement based on facts.

My interpretation of the facts is that there is no way 4K can improve motion significantly because it really does nothing to increase frame rate beyond 60 fps, and they already have that option with HD (and even use it on FOX, ESPN, ABC, and MyNet) but chose not to use it as 1080p60 because the higher bit rate does not provide a significant payoff, which is the same reasoning behind them not wanting to go to 4K. So I guess the point I am trying to make is that while going to 60 fps would increase motion quality slightly (over the 1080i30 channels at least) by reducing motion artifacts over interlaced 30 fps, HD already has a second 60 fps protocol other than 720p60, 1080p60, sitting on the shelf untouched, for a lot of good reasons, making 4K _also_ not really a significant improvement to motion. My question to you regarding your assertion is, then, how can 4K improve motion without an increased frame rate? I am fully open to being enlightened on that, because I am not here to disagree, but here to learn.

Much better improvement is what comes along with a 60 fps frame rate, which is that legacy content won't have pulldown judder, not so much because 4K itself won't have it, but because we will be somewhat out from under the ubiquitous legacy of pulldown judder, even now in 720p, which technically should not have pulldown judder, but still does because the industry kowtows to 1080i30. And we also already have ways to remove pulldown judder in any TV that has 120Hz capability, yet most folks hate how that looks and mostly leave that option turned off. 60 Hz has also never been adopted by the internet, also for the very same list of very good reasons.

But removal of judder aside, the reason 1080i works so well is that while it has full 1920x1080 resolution in static images and that resolution (at least horizontally) drops in half during motion, real human vision resolution drops appreciatively in real life as well whenever there is motion, so we don't see that loss of resolution during motion as an artifact, which is why we don't really need non-interlaced 60 fps to preserve it.

Does NFL on FOX benefit from 60 fps over interlaced 30 fps on CBS, during motion? Maybe theoretically, and maybe technically. But never perceptually, which is actually the only metric that matters. Thorough testing shows that both 1080i and 720p seem to have about the same subjective, perceptual resolution, which is more on the order of 800 (when you average H and V rez), and both protocols have never been able to be identified one from the other in a double-blind study, meaning we really can't tell the difference. There is a slight difference perceptually when 1080p60 is compared against those, but the operative term there is "slight", and it is based on viewing distance, which is also the Achilles' Heel of what makes 4K as insignificant as it is, and will be. 720p60 and 1080i30 are like Coke and Pepsi, and 1080p60 is like Coke with real sugar. IOW, these are differences without meaningful distinctions, implying that 4K 2160p60 will also not have a meaningful distinction as far as motion artifacts are concerned.

So I see no advantage in motion for 4K, at least significantly, for normal video, and am totally unconvinced that 4K will change things in any real way. That is, unless someone can point out whatever flaw there might be in my logic, here. Please, let me know; I learn a lot more by allowing folks who know more to correct my thinking than I do by staunchly defending my thinking. The advantage might be a bit better for gaming, I guess.

As to your second paragraph, of course HD played out the way it did partly because of the tech limits of the time; that's a given. It is also true that 1080p60 is much more feasible now with HEVC and better encoding techniques than it would have been in 1997. I agree, and am not arguing those points. Also your mention of legacy infrastructure preventing much possibility of it ever happening even once there were improvements only supports my other assertions that this is what will be problematic for broadcasting moving forward.

But what I think is an important point is that 1080p60 wasn't only not used then because it was not feasible in a 6 MHz channel, it was also not used because it was not all that helpful to improving PQ, and that is the same argument as to why 4K may not be much to write home about, because the cost of delivery at a higher bit rate is still a cost providers would like to trim. They live to trim costs, after all, and bandwidth and quality are low-hanging fruit to them.

And here something to illustrate that: We had really quality terrestrial phone service, even after much of it went digital. Digital even improved it from a noise floor perspective. Then cellular happened, and everyone took every single bit out of the delivery rate that they could, to the point where the sound quality of mobile phones completely sucks, and if you are in a moving vehicle or have significant location background noise, it almost becomes unintelligible. Listen to any call-in radio show and it is obvious the phone technology now is far inferior to what it was 20 years ago when analog bandwidth, like gasoline in the 60s, was cheap and plentiful.

And that is precisely because of the desire of AT&T and the rest to go to the smallest possible bit rate they could get away with. Satellite radio sounds terrible for the same reason There is no stereo separation, there is not dynamic range, highs sound unnaturally glisteny and lows are muddy and indistinct, especially when the frequency response is band-reduced prior to processing. Same reason. Bottom line, there is little desire for providers to give us technology that uses the full capability of the "improved" protocol when they can save money by squeezing that protocol to within an inch of its life.

And there is no economical or technical reason why 4K would fare any differently. People were fine with VHS quality when that was what was available, and are not going to demand quality, at least other than specific wet-dream rants on the tech forums, in real life. How many Pono audio players has Neil Young sold?

Exactly.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think you're overselling 4k by calling it a protocol that merely carries info. TCP/IP is a protocol that doesn't specify the data contents. 4k does.
> 
> The 4k specifications enable features and reproductions that previous specifications do not. Whether or not those features are used is now a choice, whereas before it couldn't be done.
> 
> ...


Now Tom, on the other hand, I mostly agree with.

Except for me "overselling" 4K. If anything, I think the perception will be that I am underselling it. And it is indeed just a protocol, just like TCP is a protocol. One is more open, one has more restrictive standards in it, but they are both just protocols. My point was that they have a lot of similarities along with significant differences, but neither has anything to do with reproduction technology, other than the obvious assumption that reproductive devices adhere to the suggestions made by the creators of the protocol. Still, reproduction is not a part of 4K, instead, a part of how a TV or iPad _handles_ 4k.

But maybe Tom objects to that characterization specifically because 4K is a budding protocol, and unfinished, and unstandardized as of yet. So maybe it does not deserve to be called a protocol just yet. Maybr it is more accurately just a technology. I will give you that, but how else should it be characterized?

4K really does not have a significantly different color gamut than HD, which is why we need WCG to happen along with 4K, which is a problem based directly in how does the industry adopt 4K. But a $600 Vizio 4K on display at Walmart doesn't have any real color gamut improvement even if the content might, because their version of 4K does not include WCG, or anything close to that, nor does anyone else's. We need another year before UHD TV's really start to get good, even if they technically have 4K now.

But the HD protocol can't improve its color gamut. That is not happening, and can't happen, and won't. There is no cogent argument that they could. Sure there is technology available, but changing the ability of HD would be a changing of the protocol, to a new and different protocol, because the current protocol spells the current limitations out specifically. If you own the "original" axe used by George Washington to chop down the cherry tree but both the axe blade and the axe handle have been replaced over time, well then that really is not the original axe, is it?

Sure, they should have found a backward-compatible way to put 4K or ATSC 3.0 in legacy HDTVs. But we should all be sipping cristal and have 72 virgins waiting for us, too. The reason they didn't is because it was not possible, rather than simply deciding not to.

The most impressive technology for reproduction of 4K, other than HDR, which is a protocol (there I go again) er, a technology, that has both delivery as well as reproduction standards, is OLED. But OLED might not ever catch on. It's super pricey, and ULED, from Chinese manufacturers, is similar in most ways other than it is not pricey, and might just pull the rug out from under OLED. Or at least it might force that price drop we are all waiting for.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It looks like CSI:Cyber will be back on January 10th.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

TomCat said:


> I have to disagree, inky, regarding 4K. And it is not a disagreement based on our opinions, because opinions are all in disagreement because each is different, by nature. It is a disagreement based on facts.
> 
> My interpretation of the facts is that there is no way 4K can improve motion significantly because it really does nothing to increase frame rate beyond 60 fps, and they already have that option with HD (and even use it on FOX, ESPN, ABC, and MyNet) but chose not to use it as 1080p60 because the higher bit rate does not provide a significant payoff, which is the same reasoning behind them not wanting to go to 4K. So I guess the point I am trying to make is that while going to 60 fps would increase motion quality slightly (over the 1080i30 channels at least) by reducing motion artifacts over interlaced 30 fps, HD already has a second 60 fps protocol other than 720p60, 1080p60, sitting on the shelf untouched, for a lot of good reasons, making 4K _also_ not really a significant improvement to motion. My question to you regarding your assertion is, then, how can 4K improve motion without an increased frame rate? I am fully open to being enlightened on that, because I am not here to disagree, but here to learn.
> 
> ...


AWESOME POST!!!!!! This should put the debate that 4K improves motion to bed, six feet under!!!!!

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> It looks like CSI:Cyber will be back on January 10th.


I would swear there is one in my ToDo List for tonight.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

There is in mine too. But I haven't looked at the details yet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My EPG for tonight has 60 minutes (30 minutes delayed) followed by Undercover Boss and two episodes of Limitless.
Next week 60 Minutes, Madam Secretary, The Good Wife, CSI: Cyber at their "regular scheduled" times (7p,8p,9p,10p) with CSI: Cyber being season 2, episode 11 "404: Flight Not Found" first air 1/10/2016.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

James Long said:


> My EPG for tonight has 60 minutes (30 minutes delayed) followed by Undercover Boss and two episodes of Limitless.
> Next week 60 Minutes, Madam Secretary, The Good Wife, CSI: Cyber at their "regular scheduled" times (7p,8p,9p,10p) with CSI: Cyber being season 2, episode 11 "404: Flight Not Found" first air 1/10/2016.


Same schedule here without the 30 minute delay--normal Mountain Timezone shift.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I started a thread over in the Internet Streaming Services area about this - on two Wednesdays, March 2 & 9, "CSI: Cyber" episodes will be aired with "Elementary" to be shoved over from Thursday to Sunday nights.

According to _Deadline Hollywood_:



> ...Sophomore _CSI: Cyber_ will get two airings in the Wednesday 10 PM hour before it is taken off the schedule. (It is unclear when its remaining originals will air). The _CSI: Cyber_ Wednesday showings will push the premiere of new Wednesday 10 PM entry Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders by two weeks, to March 16.
> 
> Whether a quick death awaits _CSI: Cyber_ will likely depend on its performance in its two Wednesday outings. The series suffered from inconsistent start times in the fall when it was often pushed to 10:30 PM by football. So CBS executives want to see if the show can improve on its poor ratings performance by a temporary upgrade to a better time slot before they make a renewal decision. The Wednesday 10 PM slot has a long CSI history as both _CSI: NY_ and _CSI_ aired there.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Last night's _'Cyber'_ finally exhausted my ability to suspend disbelief.
For the great unwashed, it was, essentially, a gee-whiz snow job.

Color me done.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Well it looks like CBS is trying to get rid of all the episodes it had in the can. They are running it twice a week now.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Based on the ending, it looks like it won't be back. They had a nice setup for a cliffhanger, then aired a 3 minute piece that wrapped it all up in a nice little ball.

Too bad as we enjoyed the show even if it was unrealistic.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

I caught a few mo' episodes after I cancel my series recording. I quickly get fed up with the show because the lead, played by Patricia Arquette, was extremely poorly directed and performed.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Cancelled. 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/13/nashville-csi-cyber-castle-and-more-canceled-by-networks.html?intcmp=hpff


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I watched one episode of this show.


----------



## seern (Jan 13, 2007)

lwilli201 said:


> I watched one episode of this show.


+1


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Probably one too many


----------

