Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Movies Television The Almighty Buck Entertainment

Netflix Shows Are All Worldwide Hits -- Until They're Not (bloomberg.com) 193

An anonymous reader shares a report: On a conference call last October, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos described the hip-hop drama "The Get Down" as a success, like the booming streaming service's other popular shows. Eight months and 11 episodes later, "The Get Down" is history, a flop after one season on the world's largest paid video service. The sci-fi thriller "Sense8," another of the company's lavish productions, was scrapped after two seasons. The back-to-back cancellations caught Hollywood by surprise. Netflix has defied convention by offering no inkling of how many people watch its shows and claiming just about everything is a hit. That's vexed competitors worried about Netflix's growing customer base and influence in Hollywood. The streaming company will spend more than $6 billion on programming this year, a good chunk of that on about 1,000 hours of original shows. Cancellations are common for all TV networks -- even for Netflix, which has wrapped up most of its first crop of original shows. Without the need to attract advertisers, the company is shielded from the weekly audience ratings that determine the fate of most dramas and sitcoms. "One of the great things about Netflix is we don't have to release ratings," Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings said in an interview this week on CNBC. "Each show gets to have its own audience because it is very personalized." That's great for Netflix and its 100 million customers, who pay up to $12 a month for the service. Without pressure to deliver weekly ratings, the company can give shows time to develop a following. "House of Cards," the thriller starring Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, just started its fifth season. It's not so great for competitors -- or producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service. With no data, they must rely on the positive remarks Netflix executives make for all their shows.

Netflix Shows Are All Worldwide Hits -- Until They're Not

Comments Filter:
  • The down side is we'll never know why they canned the shows
    • The down side is we'll never know why they canned the shows

      Well, with the show them mentioned, "The Get Down"...easy to figure why it flopped....its subject matter.

    • Re:The Down Side (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:38AM (#54808885)
      For subscription services, the value of having a "gotta see it" hit:

      very high

      The value of a second one:

      not so much

      Likely they dumped the most expensive shows, hits or not.
      • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:18PM (#54809261)

        I feel that a lot of Netflix series, well may be well written, seem to not have rewatchability factor to it. These are shows that I normally flag, as I watched it, I was glad I watched it, but after that I am not interested in seeing it again. For me I find this common with "Smart" Shows. While engaging, and may make you think, after you have thought about it, rewatching it again, just boring, because there isn't much new in a new view.

        Some shows have the right amount of smart in it, that rewatching over and over means you can get different angles, but also not make watching it again a chore.

        • by E-Rock ( 84950 )

          There is so much good to great content now, than unless I run into someone who hasn't seen a great movie or show, and I watch it with them, I never rewatch anything.

      • A must-see hit is the not the same for everybody... Having a must-see hit for various different people is what matters.

        Arguably, netflix probably can facilitate broader content... That said, it's still sad to see a future full of silos.
    • Re: The Down Side (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:50AM (#54809025)

      That's easy. Sense8 was a good sci-fi concept. I watched the first season hoping it would get better and drop the concentration on sex. Started watching season 2 and turned it off after 15 minutes. I don't consider myself prudish but I wasn't going to sit through a season of broke back mountain. The notion they seemed to be pushing was we are all gay if we just give it a chance.
      Never even occurred to me me to watch the other thing whatever it was simply because I don't care.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        That's easy. Sense8 was a good sci-fi concept. I watched the first season hoping it would get better and drop the concentration on sex. Started watching season 2 and turned it off after 15 minutes. I don't consider myself prudish but I wasn't going to sit through a season of broke back mountain. The notion they seemed to be pushing was we are all gay if we just give it a chance.
        Never even occurred to me me to watch the other thing whatever it was simply because I don't care.

        I have to agree. I did watch season 2 though and enjoyed it. But I did find myself fast-forwarding through all the crap (whichever gender on gender it happened to be).

    • Re:The Down Side (Score:5, Informative)

      by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:57PM (#54809631)
      There was an article on CNN or Reuters (can't find the article at the moment... it might have simply been a link from one of them) today about Sense8. Because of all the travel and different locals they were shooting, their production cost was about 9mil per episode.... about what GoT is. My guess is on that one is: money.

      I've only watched a few of their series, and while Sense8 had a great premise, i can see some people having difficulty following it. The other mentioned i haven't seen, so no clue there.
      • I read an article about that show once telling how pleasantly surprised the Wachowskis were to be given no budget restrictions by Netflix. It's too bad there wasn't some middle ground between "no budget restrictions" and "canceled for being too expensive."
  • it ain't about absence of ratings
  • by cunina ( 986893 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:37AM (#54808871)
    For the networks, there's an incentive to keep plodding on with a show until it hits 100 episodes, which is the magic number required for syndication. That's why Star Trek: Enterprise was allowed to stagger through its crummy fourth season. Syndication allows recovery of the sunken costs in a mediocre show.

    Netflix doesn't have to worry about that. Syndication has no meaning in an on-demand world. They can make a handful of episodes of, say, Marco Polo, and even if most people don't enjoy it, there will be enough people who do that Netflix can cancel the show early yet still get the benefit of the show in perpetuity. So for Netflix, pretty much anything they make is a "hit" as long as some people, now or in the extended future, are willing to watch it (and keep their Netflix subscriptions going).
    • "For the networks, there's an incentive to keep plodding on with a show until it hits 100 episodes, which is the magic number required for syndication. That's why Star Trek: Enterprise was allowed to stagger through its crummy fourth season."

      OT, but the magic number for syndication is 65: weekdays for 1 quarter (5 days per week * 13 weeks)

      Enterprise only had 98 episodes.

      • by cunina ( 986893 )

        Enterprise only had 98 episodes.

        Which is yet another token of how much contempt the network had for the show. Though maybe we should be glad they didn't extend the series finale into a three-part episode, in which Riker gets to bang T'Pol, beats Archer in a fistfight, kills Shran for calling him a "pink-skin," and more holodeck wish-fulfillment horseshit.

    • Maybe 100 is a new metric for syndication, but there are plenty of old shows that were syndicated that didn't have near that number of episodes. Here's the first two I can think of:

      The original Star Trek had about 80 episodes in its thee seasons.

      The original Scooby Doo cartoon had 25 in two seasons.

      • by jandrese ( 485 )
        Scooby Doo was split across a whole bunch of series though. It's true the original Scooby Doo was only 25 eps, but that was followed up by over a dozen Scooby Doo series, including the ones where they had lots of guest starts, ones with Scrappy Doo, etc...
    • Marco Polo was definitely in the top 10 shows I've watched in the last decade. Was very annoyed they cancelled it.

    • "... recovery of the sunken costs..."

      Technically speaking, sunk costs can't be recovered. But you're point is well taken.

      • by cunina ( 986893 )
        Indeed, thank you for the correction. My Econ-Sense was tingling as I was typing that, I should have heeded it.
    • On the flip side, Netflix never loses contributing value of IP. If they shitcan a show after a season or two, that's fine. People who like it might be disappointed, but it doesn't disappear into a canceled show void. This allows the content to be enjoyed by new viewers many years after the show was killed off.

      In the major networks model, they lose all investment when a show fails to reach syndication. Heck, their smart move now might be to offer the shows to Netflix as freebies.
  • ...Netflix has defied convention by offering no inkling of how many people watch its shows and claiming just about everything is a hit....

    Watch an episode or two or three of the show. If you like it, continue to watch it, and enjoy the show. If you don't like it, stop watching it, and move on. See how simple that is? No need to obsess over what everyone else is thinking about the show.

    • On regular TV, if I know that a show isn't a "hit", I'm less likely to try it because TPTB will probably cancel it in the middle, leaving me pissed off. That probably wouldn't apply to the NF originals, since they release a whole season at a time.

      • Yes. That's my point. On Netflix it matters little, if at all, whether a show is a hit. f you like it, watch it; if you don't, move on.
    • As a viewer, I agree. The main reason I'm interested in the success of a show is whether or not I might continue to see more of it. This can be important if they're employing story arcs or other forms of storytelling that go beyond the stand-alone episode format.

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      Hits don't matter, subscribers do. So does a show generate interest the keeps people subscribing to the service. Not only keep subscribing, but do the shows generate new subscribers. Do the people who sign up for the free month continue as paid subscribers.

      This latter, I suspect, is the reason show gets canceled. If the subscribers are putting their subscriptions on hiatus after binge watching, those subscribers are of no value. This is not like HBO who also gets carriage fees. Netflix is subscriber

  • by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:42AM (#54808923) Homepage
    Dear Netflix,

    I have no interest investing time to watch a show that goes nowhere. Gets cancelled. Or has no definite ending. Even worse, that ends on a cliffhanger.

    Follow a formula like Babylon 5 used. A story with a beginning, middle and end. Having a definite ending where everyone lives happily ever after is important. In the last few episodes you can see the pieces being moved off the chessboard as everyone gets promoted or retires or whatever. It doesn't have to be a five year story arc. But it does have to be something that you can definitely pull off without cancelling it.

    I've watched shows that had a well conceived first season. Obviously thought out by a single mind. Or maybe a small number of people. Excitement builds from episode to episode. It has a good season 1 ending. Then it gets a second season and goes off the rails. In season 2 the show has no planned story. The writers wander aimlessly. Eventually the writers turn to thinking about what outlandish twist can we do to a major character -- completely ruining the character's back story in previous episodes.

    I know it is tempting to think that if you can drag a show on for more seasons that it makes more profit. That is true in the short term. Eventually your audiences get tired of being strung along without ever having a conclusion. Resolution. They just quit watching. Find other forms of entertainment that have a satisfying ending -- like reading a good book. In the long run, it is more profitable to have a limited pre-planned number of seasons with a story that winds up and makes everyone happy. This kind of show might be watched and re-watched for generations. Just like a good book.

    Stop worrying about trying to make a show that everyone wants to watch. There is no such show. This thinking is what killed television, and later cable tv. Make a show that a certain audience will love dearly. Make another show that another audience will love. People who like particular types of shows will continue to appear as new viewers -- forever. There will always be new sci-fi viewers, for example.
    • by es330td ( 964170 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:17PM (#54809255)
      Dear Dickbreath:

      The world does not revolve around you. As a series, Law & Order has no beginning middle or end and premiered before current college graduates were born. People like different things and Netflix could not care less what *you* want. They are going to make shows to draw viewers. They know what you watch. They don't need Nielsen ratings. If you like a show, watch it. Enough people like you and it will continue. Too few and it will get the axe. If you want Netflix to know what you want, show them through viewing behavior. This is about as direct democracy as you can get. Just get on and vote.
      • Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.

        It's a free country, people are absolutely allowed to watch trash. And critics, who are also free people, are allowed to claim that trash is high art.

        • Yeah, I quit watching Law & Order in the late 1990's after seeing several years of it going now where.

          It fell off the rails after Jerry Orbach died. Even though he had left the series by then, his death took the wind out of the show. It never really recovered.

    • I bought my kids a $10 pack of some medical drama once only to find out the reason it was cheap was it only got one season. She was not pleased. Shows get cancelled like that all the time.

      All that said, what you're asking for is niche content. And you're not likely to get it. Japan gets a little of it with Anime, but it tends to be low quality because of the need to sell merch (think fan service). At the end of the day these are businesses and stuff costs money. They're either gonna need a product with
    • by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

      Follow a formula like Babylon 5 used. A story with a beginning, middle and end. Having a definite ending where everyone lives happily ever after is important. In the last few episodes you can see the pieces being moved off the chessboard as everyone gets promoted or retires or whatever. It doesn't have to be a five year story arc. But it does have to be something that you can definitely pull off without cancelling it.

      Is that really a great example? If you consider Seasons 1 - 4 and the last episode of seaso

      • Yes, Babylon 5 is one of the best refutations of the Babylon 5 model.

        “No operation extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main body of the enemy.” This holds true for television as well. Actors leave the show, either though illness (Michael O'Hare) or contract (Claudia Christian, Andrea Thompson) and renewals are not certain (season 4 to 5).

    • Netflix actually did a 2 hour long special final episode of Sense8 or they are planning to anyway I think. I think for the most part they've treated their viewers pretty well even for the insanely expensive, not many viewers, small cult audience shows.
  • by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:42AM (#54808927) Homepage Journal
    I don't know about the Get Down, but my impression of Sense8 is that it was a good show with probably decent but not blockbuster ratings that was just too expensive to produce. Flying all of the actors around the world every season and maintaining so many sets just wasn't practical.

    I also tend to think they were running a bit low on ideas about midway through season 2. Oh, another scene were thugs randomly show up but using the power of Korean ex-CEO punching we can knock them out and escape! That said, they did keep the plotline moving at a good clip, commendable for a show like this that can so easily get sucked into the vortex of dealing with dead end sideplots and social moralizing and forget what it was supposed to be doing.

    I would be quite happy with a special/movie to tie up the loose ends (like the people in the van at the end of season 2) and call it done, but I'm not going to be angry at them like I was at Fox for Firefly if they just decide to cancel it entirely.
    • I think I saw that Netflix announced a wrap-up movie on their social media feed. I'd also ready that The Get Down was also very expensive.
    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      Ironically both Babylon-5 and Sense8 had the same creator/show runner.

      The difference was B5 was being created in a ratings-driven environment, and always had pretty good ratings, so it was able to survive (by the skin of its teeth some years), even in an environment that had turned hostile to independent productions.

      Netflix, as this article mentions, just does not have the same incentives.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:48AM (#54809001)

    Back before Netflix did away with star ratings, they had always proven to be really reliable estimates of how much I'd like a show... EXCEPT when it came to Netflix-produced stuff. With those, the "best guess" they'd suggest for me was invariably 4.8 to 5 stars - but, once I watched them, it turned out to be a crapshoot whether I'd even like the show/movie at all. I can't think of a Netflix-produced show I'd give even 4 stars to (if that were even possible nowadays).

    So, yeah, it doesn't seem surprising to see yet another piece of evidence that Netflix execs might be less than honest when it comes to their own shows.

    • I can't think of a Netflix-produced show I'd give even 4 stars to (if that were even possible nowadays).

      Their animated shit is the best shit they make. Bojack Horseman, F is for Family, Voltron, etc.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @11:57AM (#54809077)

    From the summary: Netflix is "shielded from the weekly audience ratings".

    That is absurd. Netflix in fact is exactly the opposite of this statement; They have nothing BUT audience ratings to drive them. They don't have marketers clamoring for shows to be changed in a specific way. They don't have fights about a show not being able to exist because a timeslot it belongs in is full.

    What they do have is pure, undiluted ratings. Is part of an episode boring? Netflix knows to the millisecond when you skipped or stopped watching. Show gets bad later in the season or after the pilot? Netflix knows you stopped watching, and on what episode... Netflix knows when you went back to watch something. Netflix knows when you binge-watched for fourteen hours straight. Netflix knows so much broadcast networks could only dream of knowing about the entire audience...

    It makes perfect sense to me that Netflix would toss a show at the drop of a hat, if the audience is leaving in droves. I'm sure they give shows some leeway to find footing but even then Netflix probably knows exactly from data of every other successful show exactly what "finding footing" looks like from a viewing behavior perspective.

    I'm pretty happy with the flood of new Netflix content. Yes a lot of it is and will be crap, but that's because 99% of everything is crap. So the more they produce the more non-crappy content will come to exist as well...

    • by g01d4 ( 888748 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:32PM (#54809399)
      I think the point was Netflix is shielded from making their audience ratings public. Clearly there's not going to be an incentive to maintain an unpopular show, but there's just as much incentive to make an exaggerated popularity claim to increase the number of viewers, aka false advertising.
      • I think the point was Netflix is shielded from making their audience ratings public.

        The thing is, Netflix ratings are public [variety.com] - no not Netflix provided ratings but the same crappy estimates that all other networks get for ratings, you can get for Netflix also. So it's not like no-one else has any idea what ratings of popular netflix shows are.

        Now what could be said I guess is that Netflix is shielded from having to ACT on these public ratings, because they have far more perfect data. But to me that is till

  • I think the problem is that TV shows are being released all together. You have 10 episodes a season (for example) that just come out all at once. It's like a 10 hour movie. You binge watch it, and have no clue what happened on Episode 2 or Episode 4 - you can't tell when events occurred, you might just remember that they did.

    I never understood why Netflix and Amazon release TV shows like this.

    What happened to waiting?

    Make people wait. Release 1 episode a week, like normal TV shows do. This will make people

    • How is this a problem? It seems more like desire for the status quo.

      a) Plenty of people gab around me gab about Netflix's shows. The difference is that they can gab about the entire season rather than specific episodes. I heard way more talk about, say, Daredevil or Jessica Jones, than I do about Game of Thrones or American Gods.

      b) With DVRs and other on-demand services for shows, even weekly shows no longer have the watercooler effect on Monday.

      Some people binge watch them all at once, and that's fine,

      • by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:22PM (#54809309) Homepage

        The problem is with the production side, as the article says. Traditionally the stars and production company make a show and lowball the cost to get it on the air. They take lower salaries, cheaper locations, etc. Then if the ratings get big they renegotiate their contracts for better pay, more return per episode, better quality episodes.

        With Netflix's attitude towards ratings, it makes it harder for production to do this. They still have to meet certain costs on production, but then if Netflix only says "It's a hit!" with no metrics, they can't judge what kind of leverage they have for renegotiation.

        Then again, Netflix mostly skips the idea of pilot episodes and orders entire seasons, so less risk on the production side to start with.

      • One problem is the lag time before another season. If you have ten episodes spaced out one per week that's two and a half months. All at once is a week. Say the delay until the next season is six months, the first is only a 3.5 month wait and the second almost an entire six months. Interest wanes.
        • The problem is the 10 episodes and following the BBC/UK television production standards. They should be doing the 22-26 episodes common to the US market.

          This thing alone is the thing I hate most about Netflix's series.

    • by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:16PM (#54809247) Homepage Journal

      OTOH, I don't like the way regular TV releases a few weeks, waits a couple of months in the winter, releases a few more, takes a spring break, then releases a few more and quits for the summer.

    • People don't want to wait, and thus Netflix is giving people exactly what they want. When I rewatched Enterprise on Netflix (well, I'd give up by season 3 in the original run) I actually enjoyed it more since I could watch the two part episodes in one go.

    • This all at once system is silly.

      I'm having a hard time figuring out whether you're saying it's silly for the viewers or for Netflix. I'll assume that you're saying it's silly for Netflix, since viewers are almost universally going to prefer to watch on their own schedule, whatever that may be. Those that want an episode per week can do that. Those that want to binge can do that. Or anything in between.

      But it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that you know what's good for Netflix better than Netflix does. I mean, they're investing b

  • by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:02PM (#54809129)
    On Netflix (streaming), almost each time we want to watch something specific it's not there . So we settle for something else. It's like going to a pizza, but they don't use cheese. Netflix series are good? A few are. Most of them rely on conventional recipes, and after a few episodes, boring ahead. The bad in this is that Netflix teaches people how to view something they don't really want to watch. Like going to a bakery where you don't like much the bread, but that's the only bakery around, so you buy that bread and get used to it. Do you really want that? What will that become within 5 years? I'd favor streaming where you get exactly what you want to watch, even if the price is per show.
  • And the problem with that is what?
  • by AnotherBlackHat ( 265897 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @12:48PM (#54809547) Homepage

    ... who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough ...

    In other words, "They're making money and I'm not getting any."
    Or really, they might be making money and not giving it to me.

    I can almost see some justification for actors; their reputation is affected by how many people see their performance.

    But for everyone else?
    If you don't like it, make your own content and publish it yourself.

  • The problem is that we have essentially raised a generation of people that would rather sit and watch a whole season of a tv show every day instead of getting up and trying to learn or better their self. I stopped completely watching TV about 3 years ago, my wife still watches TV, and occasionally ill turn around and watch a few minutes of a show if its something like South Park, Futurama, That 70's Show, something funny.. Or maybe when I'm half drunk and ready for bed ill watch 30 minutes of whatever she i

    • What about those of us that do both? It's possible you know. The world stops for the GF and I when House of Cards has a new season, for about 2 days, then we're back in our routine. We still "better ourselves" and know how to relax too.

      • I've never let a TV show do that to me, however I understand what you mean. It sounds as though you and your girlfriend use TV responsibly, you don't depend on it like so many people seem to be lately, also things like Facebook, and Twitter, Instagram.. They are letting it become their everything. It makes the the rare occurrence of the child temper tantrum over video games seem like, well child's play. Pun intended? Either way it doesn't seem to be mentally healthy.

  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Friday July 14, 2017 @01:32PM (#54809927) Journal

    I'm reminded of a gag I once saw:

    Welcome to the tautology club

    The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

  • With no data, they must rely on the positive remarks Netflix executives make for all their shows.

    Or they could, you know, collect some data.

    Do they think the data on traditional television viewership numbers just pops into existence by magic or something?

  • Season 1 of The Last Kingdom was interesting but not great. Everything after that was content mill writing. No amount of money spent on production can exceed the value of the writing.
    • Season 1 of The Last Kingdom was interesting but not great. Everything after that was content mill writing. No amount of money spent on production can exceed the value of the writing.

      Netflix had nothing to do with the first season. It was on BBC before it ever showed on Netflix. Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon frequently brand things as "originals" if they are merely the first to show them in America, even if they had nothing to do with the production.

      They were involved in the second season however. Both seasons though are based on the (excellent) books by Bernard Cornwall btw. The books are really good. The books themselves are also based around real history that was happening. (Utred

      • And for those who don't know, King Alfred in the son of Viking's Athelstan, so it's kind of like a sequel series. Not that Vikings has much real stuff in it.

  • by hackel ( 10452 )

    "Producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service."

    Gee, maybe you should get paid for the ACTUAL work that you do, and not how many people view it? Just a thought... This is why I can't stand the entertainment industry. Residuals should be outlawed. No one deserves to be paid for not doing actual work. They should be compensated well up-front, paid by the hour, just like the rest of us.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Producers who must grope for ways to measure the success of a given program and wonder if they're getting paid enough by the streaming service."

      Gee, maybe you should get paid for the ACTUAL work that you do, and not how many people view it? Just a thought... This is why I can't stand the entertainment industry. Residuals should be outlawed. No one deserves to be paid for not doing actual work. They should be compensated well up-front, paid by the hour, just like the rest of us.

      Suppose there were no residuals like you want and creative people need to get compensated at the beginning for the value of their creation. How can they properly judge the value of what they are creating if they have no insight into how successful it has been? They will probably be inclined to go back to the media which supplies them with numbers so they do not feel cheated.

      The way you have described it becomes like sale of a stock. The creators are selling the rights to distribute their creation for pro

      • Couldn't have said it better myself, profit sharing and incentive bonuses are no different then giving employees an actual cut of the profits.
  • Netflix puts out as many on the surface obvious bad shows as everyone else.

  • I actually liked the Get Down. It may have not had the viewership it needed, but it had enough stars and I gave it a shot. But once they did away with the stars and replaced it with thumbs/up and down, I no longer trust the recommendations. Especially on their in-house shows. I don't think I've given a new Netflix show a shot since then. Especially after seeing previously 1-star trash rise to "98% recommended" overnight (whatever that means).

    Thumbs up/down isn't granular enough for me, so I don't even rate

  • by RedMage ( 136286 ) on Friday July 14, 2017 @03:03PM (#54810691) Homepage

    ... from the constant barrage you can see on US networks (ABC, NBC, and especially CBS) with promo bumpers for "Watch our net HIT show...", and "On the NEW HIT SHOW this fall..." The thing hasn't even aired yet and it's a "HIT SHOW". Even if its crap, and it gets cancelled in half a season it's a "HIT SHOW". Garbage all...

Small is beautiful.

Working...