Are you frickin' kidding me?
Mar. 13th, 2008 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Are you frickin' kidding me? Is the CW going totally bonkers these days or what? Did the mental powers of Dawn Ostroff scramble everybody's brain up there?
"90210" spin-off on fast track"!
Yes, you read it right. The CW is planning a spin-off of Beverly Hills 90210 for next season! Like really. Honestly. I'm not kidding!
So, let me get this straight. Next season, it'll be realitycrap shows like America's Next Top Model and possibly Pussycat Dolls and Beauty and the Geek and 4! teeny soap operas: Gossip Girl, One Tree Hill, How to Teach Filthy Rich Girls and the 90210 spin-off. Oh, and Smallville. And Supernatural - but that only because they could find no excuse to cancel it when it performed much better than any of their new shows and 95% of reality stuff they have.
And since I'm already talking about their badly performing shows, take a look at Tuesday's ratings:
Beauty and the Geek (new) 1.88 mil., 0.9/2
One Tree Hill (new) 2.46 mil., 1.1/3
Oh yes, their reality shows and teeny soap operas are obviously so succesful that there deserves to be a lot more of them *rolls eyes*
"90210" spin-off on fast track"!
Yes, you read it right. The CW is planning a spin-off of Beverly Hills 90210 for next season! Like really. Honestly. I'm not kidding!
So, let me get this straight. Next season, it'll be reality
And since I'm already talking about their badly performing shows, take a look at Tuesday's ratings:
Beauty and the Geek (new) 1.88 mil., 0.9/2
One Tree Hill (new) 2.46 mil., 1.1/3
Oh yes, their reality shows and teeny soap operas are obviously so succesful that there deserves to be a lot more of them *rolls eyes*
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 03:29 pm (UTC)Having said that, I quite liked 90210 when I was about 12... But, um, it was definitely a product of its time, and definitely way past the sell-by date. Is that the best they can come up with? Sheesh.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 03:40 pm (UTC)But I think that they are determined to be a soap opera teenage network. That's why I fear for SPN. Should its ratings be on par with their new shows, they will drop it like a hot potato. Look at what they did with Friday Night Smackdown - they let it go even though it brought them over 5 mil. viewers and it was their most watched program but it didn't fit their planned schedule *rolls eyes*
no subject
Date: 2008-03-14 02:53 pm (UTC)I'm now morbidly fascinated to know exactly *how* they plan to spin-off 90210. I mean, 'spin-off' implies that at least one character from the old show will feature, but with this network who can tell? If they were just going to create a totally new show with a similar premise why bother calling it a spin-off, especially since most of the age-range they seem to be aiming at would be too young to have seen the original show first time around? Why any of it?
*shakes head*
Why does everything have to be aimed at under-18s anyway? Don't answer that. I know why - advertising. It still sucks.
Madness. It's all madness.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 05:30 pm (UTC)If Pussycat Dolls is back next season, I'll eat my foot. It's bombed too spectacularly this season to warrant a third season.
Beauty and the Geek should go too, but what they should really do is drop it back to one cycle a year, spring only. That's the only way that one worked. The CW seriously overexposed it this year.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 06:07 pm (UTC)You haven't seen BH90210? O.O Girl, you have gaps in education! XD
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 07:46 pm (UTC)Eh, those types of shows aren't what I typically watch - I watch a lot of genre television. REALLY genre television. The only exception would be Everwood.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 06:18 pm (UTC)Of all the networks CW at least might feel compelled to more scripted shows because their reality stuff is bombing so badly it`s not even funny. Whereas everywhere else I`ve seen with dismay how scripted shows sink and sink in the ratings while reality thrives. Eek.
BH90210? The CW might want to capitalize on its past fame. Problem? The "old" fans are now well past their target age. And the teenies they want will most likely not have much association with the name.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 06:44 pm (UTC)The problem is they don`t have a business concept that works for such a little netlet. Sure, the big networks that are established they can go with their "themes", ABC is soap-heavy, CBS is crime-heavy, NBC used to be big on comedies etc but the CW, they should look more to cable channel and try to make it with "edgy" and as you say diverse. And the same old teen soaps are not edgy.
Also, they need to let go of their holy grail teen demo. Doesnb`t exist, doesn`t sustain a network. In that regard they could do some studies that in fact women are the big spenders in households and the above 30 crowd is where the money is. All the old ad studies are from the 50s or so.
For SPN, I do believe there are major management changes in the CW and Warner will take more of an interest in it. They need it to showcase their stuff while CBS is just losing money with it. And seeing as 4 Seasons mean 82 episodes yet a magic 100 is more profitable in syndication, let alone SciFi/cult shows make good money in merchandise etc, I believe chances are high we`ll get a Season 5 as well. (And then the CW will crumble anyway. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-03-14 12:09 am (UTC)The younger people that they SAY they want to attract can't pay the bills. It just can't.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-14 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-15 04:10 pm (UTC)The upshot of that is that Supernatural gets really good adds (chevie, colgate and what not) big money adds. Other shows on CW DON'T pull in that kind of money add.
I doubt I would watch an updated 90210 - but I do (every once and a while) watch Gos. Girl - for the adult actors - they were young when I was young...LOL
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 09:29 pm (UTC)