hackthis_archive (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hackthis_archive) wrote2002-10-01 12:19 pm
hackthis_archive) wrote2002-10-01 12:19 pm
where i say something smart for a change.
1. big enormous thank you's to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
taraljc for her amazing enablement of my plastic man/green lantern/flash love with her tremendous icons. wow.
2. kass and i have spent a long amount of time casting HP for our general perversionary skills and just so we can get a better of idea how we expect the boys to look in the future - we figure it makes it much easier to write them.
harry potter... tom welling (ignore the american part kindly)
draco malfoy... rhett miller (see 'rhett plays to the crowd - midpage. we're working on the blonde issue)
neville longbottom... joseph finnes (heh. so gratuitous)
seamus finnegan... rhys ifans (see rancid aluminium)
and cast today --
ron weasley... prince harry (many thanks to sara and criss).
i mean damn.
3. in firefly news,spasticat asked me today about ratings and shows and why some get saved when others get the axe. so
ultimately any show's life is at the whim of the president of the network, but because s/he has to come back and justify their actions they resort to other things which is why they take certain things into consideration. generally a show will be kept if the ratings aren't so hot if a) it's got a good demographic appeal - example roswell. the show itself was a tanker by most network standards, but women 18-49 loved it. that's a good demo to have.
*for those that don't know demographics are generally the break-up of who watches what and for anybody who might be worried smallville is on the cover of this week's electronic media under the title the 'super WB', that show is not in jeopardy of anything but stupidity.*
now, back to reasons for shows to be kept or not. a) there are demographics and b) there is potential. even if something isn't a hit in a time-slot, if it shows enough potential against something else - and the network has faith - then it can be moved. see for this example 'scrubs' and 'seinfeld'. it really depends on the network though, as the lower three (FOX, UPN, WB) are more likely than the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) to take chances on something that's not doing too hot and really it's all in relation. while the numbers smallville produces on the WB - generally about a 4 rating and a 6 share - are brilliant for the WB, if it was an NBC show it wouldn't have made it. being kept also has to do with timeslots and research, and promotion and politics. sometimes things are seen as tankers before they even get out the blocks 'emeril' and 'in-laws' are good examples. if a show does well, but then the numbers drop, it's likely to get axed, conversely even if a show starts out slow, but continues to grow that's the sort of show people are more likely to want to keep.
a worry for firefly could be how much money they're spend on it, it's well known that they spent over eight million on the pilot - a pilot which hasn't even been shown yet. the fact that fox sent it back to be redone tells you that they're actually listening to their research and want the show to succeed. i can really go into it if you want. but i will say that firefly's ace in the hole might also kill it. they've spent A LOT of money on it so of course they want it to succeed, but if it really shows no growth that's a lot of money that can go elsewhere.
taraljc for her amazing enablement of my plastic man/green lantern/flash love with her tremendous icons. wow.2. kass and i have spent a long amount of time casting HP for our general perversionary skills and just so we can get a better of idea how we expect the boys to look in the future - we figure it makes it much easier to write them.
harry potter... tom welling (ignore the american part kindly)
draco malfoy... rhett miller (see 'rhett plays to the crowd - midpage. we're working on the blonde issue)
neville longbottom... joseph finnes (heh. so gratuitous)
seamus finnegan... rhys ifans (see rancid aluminium)
and cast today --
ron weasley... prince harry (many thanks to sara and criss).
i mean damn.
3. in firefly news,
spasticat asked me today about ratings and shows and why some get saved when others get the axe. so ultimately any show's life is at the whim of the president of the network, but because s/he has to come back and justify their actions they resort to other things which is why they take certain things into consideration. generally a show will be kept if the ratings aren't so hot if a) it's got a good demographic appeal - example roswell. the show itself was a tanker by most network standards, but women 18-49 loved it. that's a good demo to have.
*for those that don't know demographics are generally the break-up of who watches what and for anybody who might be worried smallville is on the cover of this week's electronic media under the title the 'super WB', that show is not in jeopardy of anything but stupidity.*
now, back to reasons for shows to be kept or not. a) there are demographics and b) there is potential. even if something isn't a hit in a time-slot, if it shows enough potential against something else - and the network has faith - then it can be moved. see for this example 'scrubs' and 'seinfeld'. it really depends on the network though, as the lower three (FOX, UPN, WB) are more likely than the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) to take chances on something that's not doing too hot and really it's all in relation. while the numbers smallville produces on the WB - generally about a 4 rating and a 6 share - are brilliant for the WB, if it was an NBC show it wouldn't have made it. being kept also has to do with timeslots and research, and promotion and politics. sometimes things are seen as tankers before they even get out the blocks 'emeril' and 'in-laws' are good examples. if a show does well, but then the numbers drop, it's likely to get axed, conversely even if a show starts out slow, but continues to grow that's the sort of show people are more likely to want to keep.
a worry for firefly could be how much money they're spend on it, it's well known that they spent over eight million on the pilot - a pilot which hasn't even been shown yet. the fact that fox sent it back to be redone tells you that they're actually listening to their research and want the show to succeed. i can really go into it if you want. but i will say that firefly's ace in the hole might also kill it. they've spent A LOT of money on it so of course they want it to succeed, but if it really shows no growth that's a lot of money that can go elsewhere.
no subject
And Prince Harry as Ron? I'm torn. I mean, I can kind of see it, but I also have this mental block about thinking of Ron as hot, and I think Prince Harry is hot, so it all gets very confusing, and yes. I'm not quite sure than I can see Tom Welling as Harrry. He's almost too pretty. Will have to think on this further.
no subject
no subject
Ack! Nooooooo! Though, if you can cast someone good for Hermione, I might be convinced of Ron/Hermione.
Regarding Harry, I almost want to see him as Rivers Cuomo, from Weezer. Cos he's sexy, but not like, Tom Welling Greek god sexy. And I think it could work. See this (http://www.weezur.com/myweb5/angel.jpg), this (http://www.weezur.com/myweb5/mean14-rivers.jpg), this (http://www.weezur.com/myweb5/rivers9876415646541.jpg). Hmmm. Yes.
no subject
no subject
Washing problem or not, I still have a crush on him. Er, Rivers. Not the roadie.
no subject
There are these ads up here with the perfect guy for Harry, but I can't remember what they are for to look it up online. I think it's for sex? No, that can't be right. Birth control? No, wrong again. I will look next time.