And I think more people would've, if the CW had trumpeted up The Finale Confrontation!! Instead, they completely ignored it and buried it, so casual viewers who aren't so fanatical about making sure they watch each and every week probably had no idea that it was the last of Lex, or that Lex and Clark would be having a confrontation in the FOS. The CW didn't even release a poster for this episode. Nothing. You reap what you sow.

I also think the CW made a mistake by revealing EVERY twist in the official description, and by showing MOST of that final scene in advance in Directors Cuts and what not. If you already knew what would happen, why tune in?

This is the same network though that hasn't released a SINGLE promo shot for the Reaper finale which is only three days away. But at least that finale got some on-air promos... I don't remember seeing much on-air for SV at all... but then again, I don't think I was watching much other stuff on The CW that week.

Matt Roush had a little bit about SV in his column today regarding the question of 22 or 13 eps.

DVR results are out again and for the week of May 5-11, Smallville once again hit 4.5 million. On one hand, I guess it is encouraging that the audience is still there, but on the other, 900,000 seem to not like watching it live, which what the networks are looking at. *sigh*

Headaches galore!

I thought Dawn pretty much squashed the Reaper/SV confusion on the day that the CW fall schedule was announced. She said that Reaper would not always air on Thursdays. It'll just fill in on various nights to keep a lot of shows from airing so many repeats. That will suck for a lot of Reaper fans to see their fav show never have a consistant timeslot/air day.

Here's repeat ratings from last night in case anyone on here was curious.

For those of you in Canada, my local paper, The London Free Press, had a small article in today's paper that SUNTV - Toronto based channel was putting transmitters up in London and Ottawa to cover more of Ontario. I am currently getting the channel as part of the ditigal box I got 2 years ago so that I could watch Veronica Mars, because at the time I wasn't getting a CW channel.

SUNTV is now going to be showing not only SV, but also SPN & OTH, all of which were shown this year on Stations that were part of the CTV buyout of the CHUM group. The upshot of this is that this CW programming is now being relegated to a less watched channel than either CITY (for SPN) or A-channel (for SV), at least in Ontario. I don't know whether any other stations in the rest of Canada will be showing any of this or whether SPACE, which is part of the CTV-CHUM stuff will be showing SV & SPN next season or not.

Additionally, they are going to be simulcasting (ptui, spit) SV, SPN & OTH so that we will be forced to watch Canadian commercials even if we've turned to CW and undoubtedly they will not be showing the preview for the following week because, of course, it would use up 30 seconds of "valuable" commercial time. It will also put an end to the day earlier showing of SV in Canada so we will be back to seeing it at the same time as everyone else. Ghod help us.

The thing I find interesting is that if SUN is getting it, does that mean that CTV-CHUM didn't think it was enough of a property to hang on to?

This is more related to the CW than Smallville is particular, but Variety has an article up about a study showing the live (no DVR) median age of TV viewers for last season was 50. The CW's median age was a youthful 34. OTH had the youngest age (26), while the now cancelled Life Is Wild was the oldest (45). No idea where Smallville fits in.

More proof that Dawn's "We just want tween girls" is dumber than Lana Lang?

I could be wrong, but I believe advertizers prefer the young and those raising the young to try to instill buying preferences. 50 year olds are presumed more set in their purchasing ways.

IIRC advertisers are looking for 18-45 year old, specifically men. Dawn wants the network to cater to girls not yet old enough for Noggin. There's skewing young and there's skewing niche.

True, but eventually advertisers will start adjusting to the new rules.

Or perhaps different advertisers will come knocking. Also, dunno how much real purchasing power tweens will have as tweens; and once they do grow up, how much is advertising they watched a year ago going to influence purchase choices?

One gets the concept of catching and hooking them young, but that young, don't know how much the attention span will be re: preferred brands.

*shrugs* The gender also might have been more useful, had the results been released. Perhaps it's a function of the age factor as well, but I also find it interesting that the CW's median age did not drop when the Live + 7DVR was added.

One of the big problems the CW is having, which has been explained in other media articles, is that their target demo, teen girls, have a short attention span and easily move on from shows. Which is why the writers strike was a killer for the CW. Those viewers that they are so desperate to court moved on to other things, and didn't drift back when the shows returned. Targetting that one demo with such fervor is just suicide, IMO. Its a really, really poor business decision.

So were those green posters that somehow managed to make the cast of their shows look ugly, and pimping the ratings black hole known as Gossip Girl so much I now actively hate the show.

Then again, I am not a tween girl, so I doubt Dawn cares what I think.

I know the ratings might not be the greatest, but it does really well when it comes to other means of watching it (iTunes).
I think it's that, and as it was pointed out in the awards thread, they really haven't produced a runaway hit like the WB was able to do. Goodness knows it's not a good sign when they have to recreate "90210" and basically relauch the network online.

And I honestly believe that the audience for 90210 is more going to be people who were tweens and teens when BH9 were on the air watching it for the kitsch value before they get bored and move on. It's a dumb friggin idea.

I'm not goingto watch the new 90210. Like Paul McCartney once said, "You can't reheat a souffle."

Me either. I was reading an interview with one of the guys who is playing a teacher and he seemed to be hinting that he might sleep with one of his students ...which right there is where I knew I wasn't going to watch this thing. Maybe it's changed since I saw the article or something, but just no thank you.

It seems some advertisers may care only about the bottom line (ie. how many people are watching the show?) whereas some advertisers consider the quality of the show and who exactly is watching. I remember reading an article a few years ago about 24. In its second or third year (or maybe its first, I'm not sure), 24 could have been easily cancelled because it was not pulling in large numbers and it is an expensive show to produce. But the network and advertisers didn't cancel it because the quality of the show pulled in a certain demographic. At the time, inexpensive but "brainless" (IMHO) guilty pleasures like the Bachelor were pulling in big numbers. The sponsors of 24 took into consideration that many of 24's viewers were likely educated, intelligent people and therefore likely to have a decent income and a taste for the finer things in life. Not to mention, watching a show like 24 requires a certain level of commitment and attention to details, because if you miss an ep you could get lost. They decided that the viewership of 24 was worth holding onto because, even if the audience wasn't as big as the "reality" shows of the time, they would be more likely to buy their products.

It seems to me that the trick is to match the advertisers with the audience. For a network it would seem wise to have a variety of programming to appeal to various demographics and then you don't have to try and spread out your financing for all your shows over a limited demographic of advertisers. More kinds of programming, more kinds of sponsers. And you don't have all your eggs in one basket.

Well, there goes my possible occassional viewership.

I never watched BH9 nor do I have any desire to see 90210.

Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule: I started watching 90210 when I was 11 years old and never missed a single episode for 10 years. Inbetween I became addicted to shows like Party of Five, Melrose Place, Charmed, Felicity, and Veronica Mars and watched every episode of those shows as well. Now, I've obviously shifted my addiction over to Smallville.
Maybe "tweens" could be more loyal than we give them credit for. I wonder how many girls (who had never watched Smallville) would tune if if someone like Zac Efron or the Jonas Brothers guest-starred? Maybe they'd tune in for the those guys but stay for the hotness of TW? By the way, this is in no way implying that I want them on SV. It's bad enough we have to put up with crap like One Republic.

I was an incredibly loyal 'tween myself (but I'm rabidly obsessive, so...), and I think in general, as long as you give them something, a lot of teenagers will stick with you. I think viewers in general will let their attention wonder if not given a "fix," which is why the writer's strike was damaging to some ratings.

Hey! Me too! :-)
I guess I forget sometimes that the average person doesn't live or die by which shows are on TV that night. I'm guessing that the majority of TV watchers have maybe 1 or 2 shows that they watch every week. Everything else is probably more of "I like this show and will watch it if I remember to, but if I forget, oh well..."
About a month ago, I found out that a co-worker was a fellow SV fan. I got all excited that I could start discussing all of the obsessive-type fan things with someone, but then I asked him if he'd seen the season finale and he said no. In my mind I was "WTF!?!?!? And you call yourself a fan?" I think he was more of the mindset of, "I'll get around to seeing it eventually." Maybe that's how most people are? TWoPers probably wouldn't know the answer to that question though since IMO, we're kind of all here because we like to obsess, and nitpick, and debate, etc...

I watched 90210 back in the day - I remember one summer when it was the only thing that was new, and it was when Dylan was cheating with Kelly while Brenda was in Paris with Dean Cain. Scandalous! I fell out of it a few years later, but as long as I see that Rob Thomas isn't actively involved, I'll be watching, if only to see Aunt Becky, Lucille Bluth, and Jennie Garth.

The funny thing is, I think most of the maybe-viewers of 90210 are the ones that remember it fondly, which goes against the whole 12-34 thing Dawn wants. The formula could work though - Degrassi: The Next Generation is in its seventh season in Canada, I believe, and still quite popular. The other funny thing, though, is that 90210 was the show The WB shows used to make fun of for being lame. Oh how the pendulum swings...

I would generally prefer more genre type shows like Smallville, Supernatural, or Reaper, and I hope Reaper isn't forgotten by the time it finally returns. And, I'll still demand a Green Arrow spin-off until I'm blue - or green - in the face.

The worst part of being a Smallville fan (which might be one of the smallest true fandoms out there since better shows might have a more loyal and larger base) and meeting another Smallville fan is not wanting to seem too enthusiastic about the show because it's not a good enough show to feel pride about being obsessed with. Or when you try to simply put across something like "So I've heard about this Chlois theory..." like a trial balloon without revealing that you've read most of a 500 page online thread detailing why it makes sense and actually have serious, analytical thoughts on the matter.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Tweens might become attached to the show but simply calling it 90210 or having hot guys is not enough. And some of the top tween-attached shows of recent years are the sci-fi genre which she seems to want to ignore.

I'm just wondering out loud why after showing Wrath last week, they're showing Gemini this week and skipping Blue. Also, according to next week's TV Guide and my DVR, next week's episode is Fracture which means they're skipping Persona and Siren. I'm confused as to why they would skip Siren since that seemed to be one of the more popular episodes of the season. By doing this, it leaves them with 10 episodes which is how many weeks it is until the season premiere. I would just think that they would be better off skipping clunkers like Sleeper or Hero as opposed to Persona and Siren. Also, in my opinion, Gemini would not go on the "best of" list for Season 7 either. This week both Smallville and Supernatural are showing their Christmas episodes, but I'm not sure if Supernatural is skipping episodes in the process.
I guess there's a programming director at the CW who decides this kind of stuff?

I loved Gemini. I guess I'm in the minority.

But you're right, why are they skipping cool episodes for the dregs? Maybe they think it's important to show the back half of the season intact leading up to the premiere?

I can't believe they're skipping "Siren," not when the season opener features Ollie and the BC. My guess is that they're holding it to run it closer to the premiere.

That sounds pretty reasonable.

As far as "Gemini" (which I'm also a fan of, Teen Titan), IIRC they've rerun "Blue" twice already and "Gemini" not at all. Since I haven't seen it since its first airing, I'll be glad to see it again tonight.

I personally would rather watch Gemini ten times than sit through Blue again. Gemini had its awesome parts. But IA with Naxus; it's likely because they've already reran "Blue."

I can see the point of showing Gemini instead of Blue. However, if Sleeper and Hero got crappy ratings the first time around, you would think that they would rather show Persona and Siren for the 3rd time than 2 craptastic hours instead. Just my opinion of course...

If I ran the CW, far from rerunning Sleeper, I think I would use the original film to start a fire when the weather gets cold. That way, at least it would be worth something, and nobody in the future could ever prove it existed.

I think networks get a certain number of "free" or at least cut rate reruns before they have to start paying out full royalties. At least I remember reading something to that effect several years ago when cable stations given their smaller financial resources were trying to get cut union rates for their original programming and wanted more "free" or (or cut rate) repeats.

If airing "Hero" a second time is cheaper than airing "Siren" a third I'm sure that's a consideration given the CW's current financial state.

It seems to me that if the CW burned every worthless show that's run on their network, their schedule would mostly consist of static.

I never saw that episode, but from what I heard, Static wasn't very good either.

Very funny, Firebunny. I truly did LOL on that one. :-)

Apparently the CW announced during today's broadcast that the season premiere isn't until October 2.

Ouch.

WTF?!?!? Craig, do you know if that's a change from the original date or if TV Guide got it wrong?

Maybe their shooting start date got pushed back? Earlier this week, someone posted a recent (as in this week) TW sighting on Martha's Vineyard on the Devoted to Tom Welling website...

Shooting started this past Monday as far as I know.

This aired on the CW Network so I'm assuming it was right... but I also know TV Guide's date was right at the time they announced it, so I really don't know.

I don't think that bodes well... people will already be settled on watching Survivor or Ugly Betty by the time SV returns.

This really sucks. Are the rest of the shows (like 90210) starting at the beginning of September like they were originally planned?

Maybe I'm completely forgetting something, but is there something particularly wrong with starting on Oct. 2? Didn't Season 6 (or thereabouts) premiere on Oct. 1? I guess I don't see what the big problem is.

ETA: Okay, I see now that it didn't, but still, it isn't really that much off the usual premiere time. Am I missing something?

Didn't Supernatural start in October last year?

I think the general feeling is that if Smallville premieres after other shows in the same timeslot, viewers may already have committed to one of those shows (as Craig said).

If Smallville premieres first there's a chance to get those viewers that may be on the fence about what they're going to watch.

Obviously the diehard viewers are going to watch no-matter what, but if it's a choice between a new episode of Smallville and reruns then people are more likely to watch Smallville.

Whereas if it's a choice between Smallville and the third episode of a show you've already started watching for the season? Smallville isn't likely to win.

My main complaint is just that I was already getting myself psyched up for Sept. 18. I know boo hoo, right? I'm still disappointed though...

ETA: Small consolation: Season 7 will be out on DVD on September 9th.

If it means a better product it's worth the wait.

ROFLMAO, just kidding.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, I needed that, BP.

Wait a minute, didn't they say it was premiring in September last night? At the bottom of the screen, they were throwing out little tidbits of info; Just Hartley returns, SV will be at Comic Con, and then they said something about the season premire debuts on like Sept. 18th or something...

Black Panda, I love you. You know that? :D

Well, that's not good. I'll have time to rewatch S7 before S8 starts and that might talk me out of watching S8. ;-) Silly CW. Don't you know the longer you wait, the more likely we are to wake up from the Krypto-crack spell this show induces?

That makes sense, but even so, it wouldn't be the first time, right?


Well, at this point in the game they have to find new ways to to dash people's expectations.


I didn't see the whole thing, but on my station at least I think they said Oct. 2. They also talked about Doomsday. Anyway, if they previously said Sept. 18 I understand the disappointment over it being pushed back two weeks.