WB ORDERS FILMING OF NEW DS PILOT

[Mysterious Benefactor]

*I* (ya know, the viewer who matters  ) lost track of the show.

Well, I definitely agree that when an already established show's next season's debut is delayed because it's going to share a timeslot with another show, a network certainly takes a risk that the part of the audience who may not keep apprised of network experiments like that will possibly think the show has been canceled. Perhaps the WB might have done more to publicize the fact that Jack and Jill would be back on later in the season. And if they do decide to go with timeslot sharing again, I suppose one would hope that they'd provide a better explanation of how it would work so that the audience wouldn't miss a show's return.

That being said, timeslot sharing just might turn out to be the wave of network TV's future because the WB isn't the only network considering it. Stuart would probably be better equipped to discuss the subject, but I believe English television has been doing it for years. Unlike American series, where the norm is to make 22 episodes a season, some English series will often do only 6 or so - and it may even be a year or more before the next batch of episodes appears.

[Philippe Cordier]

That being said, timeslot sharing just might turn out to be the wave of network TV's future because the WB isn't the only network considering it. Stuart would probably be better equipped to discuss the subject, but I believe English television has been doing it for years. Unlike American series, where the norm is to make 22 episodes a season, some English series will often do only 6 or so - and it may even be a year or more before the next batch of episodes appears.

This practice seems to often result in rather high quality work.  Case in point, the most recent "Prime Suspect" entries with Helen Mirren.

Don't some U.S. shows follow this on occasion, too.  Possibly "The Guardian"?  The danger of losing track of the show is very real, though.

[Josette]

The Guardian was just given a brief hiatus.  I forget whether they particularly wanted to try the replacement (I forget what they had in that slot) or whether it wasn't doing well enough and they wanted to rest it.  They were definitely committed to finishing this season, and it's said to be on the bubble for next season, and it will be announced in a couple of weeks whether or not it's to continue.

They gave it a conclusive-enough ending for it not to be a cliffhanger if it's not picked up, but still plenty of possibilities to continue if it is.

[Raineypark]

If memory serves me, all of the "Prime Suspect" mini-runs were self-contained stand-alone works with resolutions at the end.  You hoped there would be more, but if there weren't, at least you wouldn't be wondering who-done-it.

"Wiseguy", on the other hand always featured multi-episode story "arcs" which had conclusions to one "case" before it moved on to the next one....but there were no long breaks between arcs...they segued right to the next one in the following week's episode.  I don't think I remember ever hearing the term "story arc" before that show.

And now we have the multiple HBO series that go for very long periods between production segments....and audiences seem to have no trouble remembering and finding those each time they return, even after more than a year's hiatus, as in the case of "The Sopranos".   The trick here, tho, is that all of those shows are very popular, very successful, (by cable standards) and have loyal fan bases that are willing to wait.  A show with mediocre numbers and not much "buzz", in the sea of network offerings,  can't really expect that to happen.

[Mysterious Benefactor]

The barnabasundead site is reporting that they've received two unrelated e-mails claiming that the WB will not be picking up the DS pilot. However, they don't say who the e-mails were from or how credible the sources might be - a fact which already has at least one person calling into question the site's credibility for reporting the news without explaining its validity.

Who knows, it might very well be true. But...

(yes, I'm back on my soapbox  )

...I have to agree that not citing the sources definitely calls the info into question. Purely speculating (but with past experience with situations in which things are supposedly leaked in DS fandom to base it on), perhaps the reason the sources are not cited might be because they've requested they remain anonymous for the very reason that they're not 100% sure of their info (otherwise, why not just go on record and be done with it?), in which case, if that was stated or even implied in their e-mails, barnabasundead should have sat on their report until it had actual confirmation one way or the other. Reporting something in this fashion generally accomplishes nothing more than stirring up fandom in the worst ways possible.

I can definitely empathize with their desire to get the news out there, but still...

[BarnabasUndead]

MB, first I wanted to say that I really like your board and no offense is meant by my commentary here. I think it's great and I'm sorry I didn't say so earlier.

But... I didn't particularly appreciate your comments regarding the "credibility" of my website. Why call something into question that you're not familiar with at all? Would I purposely post something wrong? No. I'm hoping I just took things the wrong way and you're not going on site-bashing. 

The reason the two unrelated e-mails' sources were unnamed is because, as I said on the site, I don't know how true it is myself. It could very well be that Source #2 heard from the same person that e-mailed me this morning, in which case it could be one person making a hoax. I posted the information so it's out there IN CASE it is true, but it is clearly marked as rumor. I can't just wait for confirmation from someone, because no one that I have talked to in association with the new show is allowed to share much of anything. (Though hopefully they can send a "you're wrong" e-mail)

Source #1 was someone who asked to be anonymous. #2 was another website - scifi2k.com if you want to be precise. Could be #1 contacted #2. Either way, I wanted to put it out there that the rumor is out there, instead of just sweeping it under the carpet and acting shocked if it does end up being true later. I don't want it to be for real, and I hope it's not.

Just please don't be a hater. You don't know me or my site and if you had a problem with it, I would have much preferred you contacted me via e-mail rather than just seeing what you saw and then rolling your eyes about it for all to see. Instead, you use your position as someone people respect to badmouth it, and if people see MB doesn't like it, (and they do respect you very much), therefore, they'll start rolling their eyes as well. Is that what you want? Is that very mature?

Anyway, I hope my reply doesn't end up getting deleted now or gets me immediately banned, 'cause I do think your board is great. But I did want to be able to defend myself and the Barnabas Undead site. Thanks for your time.

-- Craig

[Mysterious Benefactor]

I didn't particularly appreciate your comments regarding the "credibility" of my website.

It wasn't actually my comment - I was merely referring to a post that's been made on your site in connection with the report.

Why call something into question that you're not familiar with at all? Would I purposely post something wrong? No. I'm hoping I just took things the wrong way and you're not going on site-bashing. 

Truly, I'm not bashing your site - only that particularly report - or rather the way in which the report was presented. One would hope that you wouldn't purposely report inaccurate info - and I honestly believe that was nowhere near your intent. But I still stand by the opinion that reporting info without citing the validity of its source is at best an unfortunate mistake.

The reason the two unrelated e-mails' sources were unnamed is because, as I said on the site, I don't know how true it is myself.

I wanted to put it out there that the rumor is out there, instead of just sweeping it under the carpet and acting shocked if it does end up being true later. I don't want it to be for real, and I hope it's not.

As I said, I can certainly empathize with wanting to get the news out. But at the same time, reporting info, even if it's expressly stated to be a rumor, without citing the source isn't something that should be done, whether it be in DS fandom or in the world at large. I'm sorry if you think that's a harsh statement because I truly have nothing against you personally - just the manner in which the news report was presented.

Anyway, I hope my reply doesn't end up getting deleted now or gets me immediately banned

You have no worry that that might happen. We don't delete posts/ban people simply for a difference of opinion. 

[BarnabasUndead]

*Phew* So no hard feelings, perhaps.

I still stand by the good things I've said about your forum, and I apologize if the way the news came across isn't to your liking.

I can try to edit it to something more suitable; I had hoped it was made clear that it was very much a rumor and uncomfirmed, but maybe not. I'll change it, and if you have any suggestions if it's still not right, let me know. Really, I'm not trying to upset anyone, and I meant what I said when I said if you have a problem with something, please e-mail me.

Edited to add: I've made the changes to the article. Better, I hope?

-- Craig

[Mysterious Benefactor]

*Phew* So no hard feelings, perhaps.

No hard feelings at all. 

I apologize if the way the news came across isn't to your liking.

<snipped>

Edited to add: I've made the changes to the article. Better, I hope?

I sincerely appreciate the sentiment, but you had absolutely no need to apologize to me personally. The only thing at issue was that the report be presented in the fairest, most accurate manner possible (well, as accurately as any rumor can ever be presented  ). And to that end, I'd say that the changes you've made to better cite the sources go a long way to accomplishing that. 

[Mark Rainey]

<butting in>

If you two get any nicer to each other, I'm gonna have to write you both into my next novel as victims of the monster and have the epitaphs on the gravestones read: "They died as they lived -- they're all mushy."



<butting out>

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Perhaps, if our world leaders employed the sort of diplomacy that was used to smoothe over this (admittedly minor) incident as quickly and as successfully as it seems to have been, the world could be a better place.    But maybe that's just me. 

[Mark Rainey]

Horror writers always have to put the most decent people in graves in their stories. It's tradition.

--M
http://home.triad.rr.com/smrainey

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Horror writers always have to put the most decent people in graves in their stories. It's tradition.

Well, if that's the case, then I look forward to my fictional counterpart hopefully meeting his demise in one the most hideously gruesome ways possible. Let that demented imagination of yours soar! 

[Darren Gross]

Oh, cool. I'll live!

[mfmdpt]

Are you trying to imply that you're not decent, Darren? That might work on some people, but I already know that you are. So, too late, your fate is sealed. 

I'm not trying to spread more rumors but a friend who has been monitoring some of the discussions on one of the WB talk forums mentioned to me that a person who posts there and who appears to have some sort of plausible connections to the WB said that the WB just viewed the pilot yesterday. They went on to say that unless it was godawful, which they sincerely doubt, there's probably no way that an announcement would have been made today that the show was rejected.

Unfortuantely, my friend didn't provide the URL for the forum or the specific post or else I would post it. But maybe someone else who knows more about the WB's site can find it.