# "V" starts in November



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Just saw a commercial for "V" last night. Think the start date was November 3rd. We liked the first version that came out several years ago. Except for the big guy with the little voice who was the star. Guess he would have made a great silent movie star. Good show tho. Think it lasted two years. That guy's voice reminded me of Captain Janeway's.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to it. Not nearly enough good SF shows on anymore. So much material out there and they keep bringing back old shows and redoing them.

Rich


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I think the original "V" kind-of sucked, so I'm hoping for better this time. 

The networks are apparently taking a much more cautious tack with genre programming, these days, probably due to how often they've been burned by weak responses from viewers for such programming in the past. Both with ABC's "V" and with NBC's Day One, they're presenting four hours to start, to see if viewers fulfill their end of the bargain. Presumably, for "V", if the first four hours do well, then they'll present the "back nine" in the Spring. With Day One, my guess is that if the first four hours do well, they'll pick the series up either for next fall.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Bad news "V" fans ...

ABC has decided to only air 4 episodes in November, and then not bring the show back for around 6 weeks. There are apparently some production problems, with EW reporting that a demand has been made that the word "alien" not ever be uttered. 

I had high hopes for this series but I don't like the idea that ABC is meddling as it is...


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Didn't care for the first V - what with alien reptiles and cheesy special effects. Looking for better this time around.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

bicker1 said:


> I think the original "V" kind-of sucked, so I'm hoping for better this time.


Yep that's what I though also. Actually I was thinking of giving it a pass altogether. Of course I seem to remember seeing one of the previews and noticing that it had some interesting cast members that was making me think I ought to at least watch it once. I dunno we'll see, i'm already am starting to fill up the DVR with more shows than I can watch.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Yep that's what I though also. Actually I was thinking of giving it a pass altogether. Of course I seem to remember seeing one of the previews and noticing that it had some interesting cast members that was making me think I ought to at least watch it once. I dunno we'll see, i'm already am starting to fill up the DVR with more shows than I can watch.


You might want to give it a try. Special effects have improved greatly since we saw the first series. And there's no telling what tweeks they've made to keep it going for a while.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Bad news "V" fans ...
> 
> ABC has decided to only air 4 episodes in November, and then not bring the show back for around 6 weeks. There are apparently some production problems, with EW reporting that a demand has been made that the word "alien" not ever be uttered.
> 
> I had high hopes for this series but I don't like the idea that ABC is meddling as it is...


Ah, that's just wonderful. What's the big deal with "aliens"? Is that now politically incorrect?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I think the original "V" kind-of sucked, so I'm hoping for better this time.
> 
> The networks are apparently taking a much more cautious tack with genre programming, these days, probably due to how often they've been burned by weak responses from viewers for such programming in the past. Both with ABC's "V" and with NBC's Day One, they're presenting four hours to start, to see if viewers fulfill their end of the bargain. Presumably, for "V", if the first four hours do well, then they'll present the "back nine" in the Spring. With Day One, my guess is that if the first four hours do well, they'll pick the series up either for next fall.


I thought for it's time that it was pretty good. That was quite a while ago. But, I'm a big SF fan.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tsmacro said:


> Yep that's what I though also. Actually I was thinking of giving it a pass altogether. Of course I seem to remember seeing one of the previews and noticing that it had some interesting cast members that was making me think I ought to at least watch it once. I dunno we'll see, i'm already am starting to fill up the DVR with more shows than I can watch.


I almost passed up BSG because of the first series, which I thought was unwatchable. Glad I took a chance on it.

Rich


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_10UdUMmJSLg/SIxuBzOkjiI/AAAAAAAACSY/sX0rHzAm10o/s400/jane-badler-diana.jpg

i thought jane badler was nice to watch.....
and i love the way she downed whole rats in
one swallow


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ccr1958 said:


> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_10UdUMmJSLg/SIxuBzOkjiI/AAAAAAAACSY/sX0rHzAm10o/s400/jane-badler-diana.jpg
> 
> i thought jane badler was nice to watch.....
> and i love the way she downed whole rats in
> one swallow


She's one of the good things I remember about the series. Her and the big guy with the squeaky voice, I cracked up every time he opened his mouth. :lol:

Rich


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

That was Marc Singer, who went on to be the Beastmaster (i.e., Conan rip-off).


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rich584 said:


> She's one of the good things I remember about the series. Her and the big guy with the squeaky voice, I cracked up every time he opened his mouth. :lol:
> 
> Rich





BattleZone said:


> That was Marc Singer, who went on to be the Beastmaster (i.e., Conan rip-off).


I'm not sure who Rich meant with the squeaky voice, but it wasn't Marc Singer, as he has a fairly dep grizzly, raspy voice.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I've got the movies around here somewhere.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> That was Marc Singer, who went on to be the Beastmaster (i.e., Conan rip-off).


Ah! Thanx, I was gonna Google _V_ and find out what his name was, but I kept forgetting. I keep watching _Beastmaster_ whenever it shows up on one of my Premium movie channels mainly because I get a kick out of that huge, well muscled body with that squeaky little voice. Part of me laughs and the other part of me feels sorry for the guy.

Thanx again,

Rich


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Jane Badler was far better in the mini series and the follow-up mini series than the regular-season series. In fact, everyone was. The series was such a let-down!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Ah! Thanx, I was gonna Google _V_ and find out what his name was, but I kept forgetting. I keep watching _Beastmaster_ whenever it shows up on one of my Premium movie channels mainly because I get a kick out of that huge, well muscled body with that squeaky little voice. Part of me laughs and the other part of me feels sorry for the guy.
> 
> Thanx again,
> 
> Rich


This is the character you're thinking of? Marc Singer is on the left ... and from my recollection he had anything but a high/squeaky voice ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Jane Badler was far better in the mini series and the follow-up mini series than the regular-season series. In fact, everyone was. The series was such a let-down!


I had forgotten there was a series. I have been referring to the two mini-series. I just ordered one of them from NetFlix. I do have them somewhere in the house, but can't find them. All I want to do is hear Marc Singer speak. I tried to get _Beastmaster_, but they only stream that. I'll wait until I hear Singer speak before I argue further about the voice that I remember. :lol:

By the way, the reviews of whatever I ordered were really outstanding (didn't read them all, just a few). That mini-series was in 1983.

Rich


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Might be thinking of Robert Englund, who played the mousy Visitor who winds up falling in love with an Earth waitress and joins the resistance by accident. Ironic, since he, of course, gained fame as Freddy Krueger of _A Nightmare on Elm Street _slasher series.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> This is the character you're thinking of? Marc Singer is on the left ... and from my recollection he had anything but a high/squeaky voice ...


Please check out post # 16. If I'm wrong (and you've got me convinced that I am), I'll be glad to admit it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Might be thinking of Robert Englund, who played the mousy Visitor who winds up falling in love with an Earth waitress and joins the resistance by accident. Ironic, since he, of course, gained fame as Freddy Krueger of _A Nightmare on Elm Street _slasher series.


Is that what happened to him? Huh. I never would have guessed.

Rich


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

I forget her name, but the one standing next to Marc Singer in Drew's pic was always my favorite. I thought the min-series was great and own both on DVD. I've wanted to get the TV series (just to have the whole set), but last I checked it was not available still.

I'm looking forward the series... "Mousie... mouuuusie... Here mousie..."

- Merg


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The Merg said:


> I forget her name, but the one standing next to Marc Singer in Drew's pic was always my favorite. I thought the min-series was great and own both on DVD. I've wanted to get the TV series (just to have the whole set), but last I checked it was not available still.
> 
> I'm looking forward the series... "Mousie... mouuuusie... Here mousie..."
> 
> - Merg


Wish I could find my DVDs. So many things disappear in my home. My wife lost a pair of glasses a couple of weeks ago. Blamed it on my granddaughter. As if a fifteen month old would do that.

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I've got all the DVDs... and I have to agree. The first mini was the best, the 2nd mini was good until the magic ending... and the series that followed was kinda bad.

Hopefully this new incarnation will be much better. There is a lot of potential here.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've got all the DVDs... and I have to agree. The first mini was the best, the 2nd mini was good until the magic ending... and the series that followed was kinda bad.
> 
> Hopefully this new incarnation will be much better. There is a lot of potential here.


You have the TV series DVD's?

- Merg


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

HDG said:


> Didn't care for the first V - what with alien reptiles and cheesy special effects. Looking for better this time around.


The cheesy effects is what made sci-fi. This one will just be another CGI fest.



HDG said:


> Special effects have improved greatly since we saw the first series.


Umm, no, they haven't. They don't even use special effects anymore. It's all computers now. No more filmakers and stuntmen. No real talent, just geeks and keyboards.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> The cheesy effects is what made sci-fi. This one will just be another CGI fest.
> 
> Umm, no, they haven't. They don't even use special effects anymore. It's all computers now. No more filmakers and stuntmen. No real talent, just geeks and keyboards.


I've watched Beowulf twice and have it saved on a couple of HRs. That movie is completely computer generated, I think, and I've enjoyed it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The Merg said:


> You have the TV series DVD's?
> 
> - Merg


I've never seen it on DVD, but I ordered a DVD set on NetFlix that I should get tomorrow latest and I think it might be the series. Not sure, will let you know.

Rich


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The Merg said:


> You have the TV series DVD's?
> 
> - Merg


Yeah, I forget how long I've had them... but I bought both mini-series and the TV series all on DVD through Amazon in one order maybe a year or 2 ago.

Just checked... and the V series is still available/fulfilled by Amazon for $15.99 on DVD.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

The Merg said:


> You have the TV series DVD's?
> 
> - Merg


I have the Complete Series as well as both Mini-Series on DVD.

The whole TV Series is only $15.99 on Amazon. The original mini-series is $9.99 and "The Final Battle" is $13.99.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Yeah, I got the two mini-series on DVD not long after they came out in 2002 or something like that. At the time, the TV series was not out on DVD or VHS and there was no indication if it ever would be. I hadn't really checked since then for it.

- Merg


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

The show was totally boring and silly, but dominatrix Jane Badler with her awesome chest and sensual rat-swallowing (not too subtle symbology) made it all worthwhile. Marc Singer and that blonde were just tedious bit-player shlock.

The new one with that unattractive alien chick in the Badler role looks really disappointing. I mean, if you take all the sex out of that role...whaddya got?


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

I got the original Mini Series on DVD via Netflix and really liked it.


----------



## Tomar (Jun 2, 2007)

I loved the original mini-series. It became lame when they made it into a regular tv series.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Maruuk said:


> The new one with that unattractive alien chick in the Badler role looks really disappointing.


Blasphemy! :eek2:

While not as "voom-voom" as Jane, Morena Baccarin is certainly attractive.


----------



## Ric (Apr 26, 2002)

Blasphemy! :eek2:
While not as "voom-voom" as Jane said:


> absolutely! Just go check her out in Firefly


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I've got all the DVDs... and I have to agree. The first mini was the best, the 2nd mini was good until the magic ending... and the series that followed was kinda bad.
> 
> Hopefully this new incarnation will be much better. There is a lot of potential here.


Are you referring to the Star Child (I think that is what they called it)? The baby that was half lizard and half human - (actually there were twins one looking human and the other looking like a lizard, but the lizard one died.)

The subsequent magical powers the Star Child I agree were a little far fetched - combining the 2 species would give offspring magical powers.

I hope they don't go down that path again!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah... the Star Child. That's what I couldn't remember the exact name. Fine to have the interspecies child and perhaps use that as a springboard for some kind of "peace"... but somehow she had telekinetic powers when no human or lizard in the series had it? IF they had magic the whole way, fine... but somehow mammal + reptile = wizard?


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

Ric said:


> absolutely! Just go check her out in Firefly


I think it will be even more shocking when Morena is revealed to be a scaly alien since she's so delicate looking.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

The original mini series had some good themes -- e.g. recalling the Nazi persecutions, collaboration and betrayal, armed resistance -- and the sequel had some of that but seemed weaker in the writing and too preachy. Not to mention too fantastical. (Why can't they leave mysticism and magic out of science fiction? Good SF writers have been able to do that for years!) The prime-time series was awful. 

Hopefully, this series will be better written. Does anyone know who are the creative minds behind it and if Kenneth Johnson, the creator of the original, had/has any input?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Why can't they leave mysticism and magic out of science fiction? Good SF writers have been able to do that for years!


What you're talking about is "Science Fantasy". There used to be a rather strict line between the two, but over the last 40 years, that line has become rather blurred. Pure SF is supposed to be stories that are fact based. Science Fantasy got mixed with pure SF up when writers like Robert Heinlein became popular. Even the libraries get them mixed up now. For pure SF, try Robert Sawyer, a Canadian writer who writes books that you can actually learn from. He is in the minority of "pure" SF writers now.

It's not surprising that this has carried over to movies and TV shows.

Rich


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

I think the vast majority of the popularity of the (combined) genre is attributable to the portion that you call "science fantasy" (and really, fantasy in general), so a clearer delineation of the genre into two separate genres would essentially leave the hardcore fans utterly marginalized within the realm of television and film, without even the small amount of deference paid to their interest that is paid to it these days. That might be a better situation, from a purist's perspective, but drawing that distinction doesn't serve the interests of any of the production companies or networks, so I doubt we'll see any movement along those lines.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> I think the vast majority of the popularity of the (combined) genre is attributable to the portion that you call "science fantasy" (and really, fantasy in general), so a clearer delineation of the genre into two separate genres would essentially leave the hardcore fans utterly marginalized within the realm of television and film, without even the small amount of deference paid to their interest that is paid to it these days. That might be a better situation, from a purist's perspective, but drawing that distinction doesn't serve the interests of any of the production companies or networks, so I doubt we'll see any movement along those lines.


Agreed, too late to go back now.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> For pure SF, try Robert Sawyer, a Canadian writer who writes books that you can actually learn from.


"FlashForward" is the only Sawyer book I've read. IMHO it was awful as a novel even though the science was interesting. So does anyone recommend his Neanderthal Parallax or Quintaglio Ascension trilogies beyond "interesting science?"


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> "FlashForward" is the only Sawyer book I've read. IMHO it was awful as a novel even though the science was interesting. So does anyone recommend his Neanderthal Parallax or Quintaglio Ascension trilogies beyond "interesting science?"


I've read most of his books and, for the most part, enjoyed them. Sometimes authors go off on tangents that are not as satisfying to some readers. Witness Harry Turtledove. Writes some of the best alternate history novels, but his fantasy stories are not what I expect from him.

I read the Neanderthal books some time ago. I read a lot and have a hard time remembering specifics, but I do remember enjoying the first book and being disappointed in the second one. Don't remember if I even bothered to read the last one. Not even sure I knew about it.

I've had a copy of Flashforward for some time now and have not read it. Didn't even realize it was the book the show is based on. Wonder if I should read it? What do you think? Is it worth reading now, considering the series?

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I've had a copy of Flashforward for some time now and have not read it. Didn't even realize it was the book the show is based on. Wonder if I should read it? What do you think? Is it worth reading now, considering the series?
> 
> Rich


Except for the actual "flash forward" the TV show might as well not be based on the book. The science in the book is interesting, so it's worth reading for that. The story had promise, but it felt like he had an agent and publisher standing over him from about the middle on and so he just wrote as best he could leaving an ending that just seemed all wrong and contrived.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

Seems to me that "fantasy" once enbodied anything that could not be conceivably explained by alluding to science. And now, SF seems to include much of this. 

And I guess I'm not familiar with Heinlein's fantasy stuff. There was nothing remotely fantasy about "Stranger in a Strange Land." But of course he's written a lot since then!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Except for the actual "flash forward" the TV show might as well not be based on the book. The science in the book is interesting, so it's worth reading for that. The story had promise, but it felt like he had an agent and publisher standing over him from about the middle on and so he just wrote as best he could leaving an ending that just seemed all wrong and contrived.


A lot of mildly successful to wildly successful writers end up writing "screenplay" books which are obviously meant to be turned into movies or series. Sawyer started doing this a few years ago. That's about when I stopped reading his books. Disappointing when that happens.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Ira Lacher said:


> Seems to me that "fantasy" once enbodied anything that could not be conceivably explained by alluding to science. And now, SF seems to include much of this.
> 
> And I guess I'm not familiar with Heinlein's fantasy stuff. There was nothing remotely fantasy about "Stranger in a Strange Land." But of course he's written a lot since then!


He wrote some really weird stuff after that book. In one book, the protagonist went from being male to female. Don't remember the name of the book, but it was really strange.

I think there are three types of books in this category. Pure science fiction, mixed science fiction with science fantasy, and the really wild science fantasy, which has the hero jumping on his Tyrannosaurus Rex and riding off to slay aliens, who look like wolves, jump like kangaroos and breed like rabbits.

The whole thing just kinda evolved and nobody seemed to notice. Or complain. Or care.

Rich


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

I think you're referring to _I Will Fear No Evil_. I haven't read it, but here'san interesting take on it.


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

Must be a government cover-up! I'll have to check the black vault!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> This is the character you're thinking of? Marc Singer is on the left ... and from my recollection he had anything but a high/squeaky voice ...


So, I got the series DVD from NetFlix, it laid on the table for a few days and then disappeared. Thought the kids took it and were watching it. Then I asked them and they hadn't seen it. Asked my wife and she sent it back. I can't win. I'll order it again and then we can continue the argument. Just didn't want you to think I was avoiding you. 

Rich


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> The cheesy effects is what made sci-fi. This one will just be another CGI fest.


And you don't consider CGI a special effect?

From where I stand cheesy effects were enough to kill a series. It did wonders for the original V.



SayWhat? said:


> Umm, no, they haven't. They don't even use special effects anymore. It's all computers now. No more filmakers and stuntmen. No real talent, just geeks and keyboards.


Same question ... geeks and keyboards don't qualify as special effects?

I'm glad they saved all of those older series for you on DVD.


----------



## chawk80 (Aug 10, 2002)

Looks like SyFy is showing both the original miniseries and the Final Battle on Nov 1 if anyone is interested


----------



## Dario33 (Dec 15, 2008)

chawk80 said:


> Looks like SyFy is showing both the original miniseries and the Final Battle on Nov 1 if anyone is interested


Thanks for the heads-up! The miniseries was fun...the Final Battle not so much.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Yeah ... thanks for the heads-up. I'll be clearing some space to record the V mini-series. I haven't seen the originals in a long time, so I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## sorentodd45 (May 12, 2009)

I'm going to pass. There is no way this nonsense will win that time slot (because of NCIS), and then ABC will just wring its hands and say "woe is me".

I actually like some Sci Fi. If Star Trek Next Generation was new right now and on broadcast TV, I would watch loyally. But times have changed and now shows like "24" have captured my attention.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

sorentodd45 said:


> I'm going to pass. There is no way this nonsense will win that time slot (because of NCIS), and then ABC will just wring its hands and say "woe is me".


That is probably the saddest truth of this whole show. You have to wonder what ABC is thinking.

I don't know how it did tonight but "NCIS" has had 20 million viewers and a huge demo in the ratings. It's numbers look like "American Idol."

IMHO the best "V" can do by episode 3 will be in the 8 million range and a weak demo, as episode 3 will be opposite the third night of AMC's "The Prisoner" mini-series, which if it is any good, will pull scifi fans. At that point the pundits will declare "V" dead.

They should have moved "Hank" and "The Middle" to put "V" on Wednesday at 8 pm. I'm sure no one at ABC has noticed that it is a time slot currently running 15 million under Monday, 12 million under Tuesday, and 8 million under Thursday. But what do I know....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Yeah ... thanks for the heads-up. I'll be clearing some space to record the V mini-series. I haven't seen the originals in a long time, so I'm looking forward to it!


I just scheduled the SyFy broadcasts (which are in SD) and I think I'll send the NetFlix DVD back whenever it arrives (unless it's in widescreen format, which I doubt), since I'll get a better picture on SyFy (I hope). Then we can continue the argument.

Rich


----------



## jkane (Oct 12, 2007)

Anyone who is a sci fi fan will have multiple DVR capability. They will record all three and watch them when all that is on is stupid reality shows.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I had been very excited about this series but ABC spends so much time promoting it that I think I'm sick of it already.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I read that after 4 episodes, the series will go into hiatus. Not exactly giving it much hope, are they?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I had been very excited about this series but ABC spends so much time promoting it that I think I'm sick of it already.


When do they do that? I never see it.


----------



## sorentodd45 (May 12, 2009)

armophob said:


> When do they do that? I never see it.


During Flash Forward. And I think I saw a promo during The Middle.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I see promos on ESPN during football.


----------



## JmC (Jun 10, 2005)

The first several minutes of V can be seen here.


----------



## jhollan2 (Aug 31, 2006)

I saw a 2 page pull out ad in one of my "girl rags" (as the bf calls them). I cant remember which one... but it was on different paper and was complete with individual stickers that I guess you could put on stuff... although I dont know why you'd want to! They said "I support v" and "we come in peace" etc. I'm pretty sure it was last week's mailing...


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> You have to wonder what ABC is thinking.


Probably that _dead air_ is unacceptable.

If "V" cannot place #2 against NCIS, then it doesn't deserve more than four episodes.



phrelin said:


> They should have moved "Hank" and "The Middle" to put "V" on Wednesday at 8 pm.


Move Hank and The Middle *where?* Up against NCIS? They might as well cancel them. Not that I'm adverse to canceling them, but if they going to cancel them, then see my earlier comment about _dead air_.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

HDG said:


> I read that after 4 episodes, the series will go into hiatus. Not exactly giving it much hope, are they?


I think that that's the reality for every new show: Every new show has a chance to capture our attention in their first four episodes, and if they cannot, then they probably don't deserve any further chances. The number of shows that could manage to become successes after a bad start is very small compared to the number of shows that would remain failures if left on the air despite a bad start. So with "V", they're simply being more up-front about it. Hope has nothing to do with the scheduling though. It's four episodes in November sweeps -- that should be viewed as a sign of confidence. (Think about Dollhouse, eh? ... _removed _from the schedule for November sweeps.) If "V" does well, then it *will* be back. So that puts the burden on _us_, collectively. Let's see if we do our part...


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Probably that _dead air_ is unacceptable.
> 
> If "V" cannot place #2 against NCIS, then it doesn't deserve more than four episodes.


OK, since we're talking about hypothetical "what might have beens".

There are about 10± million folks who watch broadcast network TV at 8 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday who aren't watching on Wednesday but who did show up in the ratings this week when the World Series was on.

All I'm saying is that from the first announcements of the Fall Season, it was obvious Wednesday was the weakest night for competition. It was the night to gamble on scifi and fantasy. "FlashForward" is a scifi crime procedural. IMHO on Wednesday ABC could have led in the night by drawing and holding the missing 8+ million crime procedural audience creating a 15+ million audience at 8 pm and held many of them going into "V" (if it's any good) and might have even beaten "Leno" with "Eastwick" at 10 pm.

The current average viewership at 8 pm on Tuesday is as follows:

Total 43.4 million

CBS 18.7 million
Fox 8.2 million
NBC 8.1 million
ABC 6.3 million
CW 2.1 million

The current average viewership at 8 pm on Wednesday excluding this week:

Total 30.7 million

NBC 7.3 million
CBS 7.3 million
Fox 6.7 million
ABC 6.2 million
CW 3.2 million

I could easily see "V" having 15+ million viewers on Wednesday by adding 8-9 million viewers to ABC's current audience. To be second on Tuesday is to have 9 million viewers tops. Tuesday will barely pay the bills for "V". Wednesday would actually make money for ABC.


> Move Hank and The Middle *where?* Up against NCIS? They might as well cancel them. Not that I'm adverse to canceling them, but if they going to cancel them, then see my earlier comment about _dead air_.


Move "Hank" and "The Middle" to Tuesday 8 pm there's a fair chance they'll get the same viewership that ABC gets on both nights right now - 6+ million. I admit that on Wednesday it is true that "The Middle" picks up a about 0.3 million viewers who ignore "Hank." But if you're going to cancel a show for under 7 million viewers, it really doesn't matter what day you run out the episodes. "Hank" is dead and "The Middle" has been picked up.

Personally, I could have seen the following lineup for ABC on Wednesday:

8 pm "FlashForward"
9 pm "V"
10 pm "Eastwick"

And for Thursday:

8:00 pm "Modern Family"
8:30 pm "Cougar Town"
9:00 pm "Gray's Anatomy"
10:00 pm "Private Practice"

I would have saved "Hank" and "The Middle" for Tuesday after "Shark Tank" ended.

Instead, I predict that the Tuesday ratings for "V" will be #2 but will never get bragging rights except maybe the premier night.

Of course, I could be wrong.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

My God, *Hank* was unbelievably bad. We tried and tried and gave up this week and deleted the SL. Did that to *Middle* a week before that.

How could Kelsey Grammer let himself get sucked into a show like that? I believe that he could carry a show by himself with a good cast and good writing, but he had neither this time around. By "good cast'', I mean Niles, Daphne, Dad and Eddie. Bring back Frazier!

Rich


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> There are about 10± million folks who watch broadcast network TV at 8 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday who aren't watching on Wednesday but who did show up in the ratings this week when the World Series was on.


It sounded like you were starting to suggest that "V" should be about aliens who play baseball. 



phrelin said:


> I could easily see ...


This is the crux of this portion of your reply. You're essentially putting your industry savvy up against people who are actually paid obscene amount of money because they're good at that sort of thing. Of course, you could be right and they could be wrong, but the smart money wouldn't bet that way.



phrelin said:


> I would have saved "Hank" and "The Middle" for Tuesday after "Shark Tank" ended.


That doesn't make financial sense for the production companies that produce Hank and The Middle. You're trying to make business decisions without full information about what the financial arrangements between the network and the production companies were.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

rich584 said:


> How could Kelsey Grammer let himself get sucked into a show like that?


I believe Grammer had more *control *over the quality of Hank than the network did.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> This is the crux of this portion of your reply. You're essentially putting your industry savvy up against people who are actually paid obscene amount of money because they're good at that sort of thing. Of course, you could be right and they could be wrong, but the smart money wouldn't bet that way.


My savvy is worth every penny I'm paid.


----------



## Supramom2000 (Jun 21, 2007)

I just discovered this is going to screw up my entire ToDo list!! Since I am on the west coast, Sons of Anarchy airs its original program at 7:00 pm and runs until 8:01 (I hate these over-runs!!!!!). Now V and NCIS are set to record at 8:00. One of them cannot just because of 1 single minute over-run. The next airing of Sons of Anarchy is at 8:01 which obviously cannot record as NCIS and V are going. Then we have the 10:01 airing but I have The Forgotten and The Good Wife. No luck on Tuesday. Next we have Friday at 8:00. No-go. I have Smallville and Ghost Whisperer. I think I finally found a Sunday one that might work, but I will have to check further.

Crazy!!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From Variety:


> ...Scott Rosenbaum has been named showrunner-exec producer of "V," replacing Scott Peters....
> 
> Change is the latest hiccup in the early run of "V," which...halted production after the show's initial four episodes...returns in the spring with the nine remaining segments of its initial 13-episode run.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

According to the ratings at TVbytheNumbers the "V" premier added about 7 million mostly younger viewers to the 8 pm slot for ABC plus took about 3% of the viewers away from each of the other networks. Or to put it another way, NCIS still had 19.04 million viewers down from its October non-rerun October average of 19.73, while the "V" series premier scored 13.76 million for ABC compared to the October average for "Shark Tank" of 5.52 million.

The situation for ABC now is that the 4 episode showing then making people wait until spring for the remaining 9 episodes may be a bit of a problem. I assume they are doing this to avoid putting it up against both new "NCIS" episodes and "American Idol" which would be a death slot for the show.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Keep in mind that they had to temporarily cease production of the show.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

bicker1 said:


> Keep in mind that they had to temporarily cease production of the show.


Yep, when you take my last two posts together you know there is a problem. So, I assume by "Spring" they don't mean 8 pm Tuesdays in the March sweeps period when "AI" and "NCIS" will be going head-to-head together getting 80% of the viewers. If ABC is counting on "V" to give them a ratings coup then, well you know I see that as a sentence of death for "V" which is expensive to produce.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I watched it and gave it a "meh".

It was okay for me at best.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Yep, when you take my last two posts together you know there is a problem. So, I assume by "Spring" they don't mean 8 pm Tuesdays in the March sweeps period when "AI" and "NCIS" will be going head-to-head together getting 80% of the viewers. If ABC is counting on "V" to give them a ratings coup then, well you know I see that as a sentence of death for "V" which is expensive to produce.


Something has to go in the Tuesday 8PM time slot. ABC cannot present dead air. Some folks think that ABC would be best off presenting their family comedies in that slot, but I think that's misguided: I would guess that AI's audience overlaps more with the typical sitcom than with a sci-fi type program.

Besides it is not really fair to expect someone else's preferred program to be placed up against AI. For good or ill, "V" is being broadcast in that time slot, and there is no reason that "V" should be given a softer time slot at the expense of some other ABC program, so I suspect that it will return in that time slot in March. If that means that "V" will have a harder time being successful that's the breaks. It is not personal. I doubt anyone at ABC has a score to settle with "V" and is using it's time slot scheduling to exact their revenge.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I watched it and thought it was well done but there is some just something "ehhh" about seeing a show that you already know how the story ends etc. I am trying to get into it but I just keep feeling bored, like I am re-reading a B rated book.

Oh BTW I love how all these bloggers are getting upset that the show is saying that Global warming the messed up economy and the two wars can be blamed on Aliens and not the fault of us ordinary humans. I say use a scape goat if you can


----------

