CBS: MacGyver

[keg in kc]

Seriously.

Fridays this fall, starring Lucas Till.

I'm sure a trailer will be forthcoming soon.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Elegant response from you, but not unexpected.

First off, **** you.

Originally Posted by JD10367

So, please explain to all of us why remaking the same shit that was done 30 years ago is more interesting than coming up with actual new ideas and giving them a try, and then having the balls as a network to actually give them time to build an audience.

I've explained this a ****ing HUNDRED times for stupid dumb****s such as yourself.

Every year, OTA networks air completely new shows and concepts, at the expense of tens of millions of dollars, with the hope of finding an audience. It rarely happens, as dozens of shows are cancelled each year due to poor ratings and general indifference.

Using a concept that has previously connected with an audience has slightly less risk involved but risk nonetheless.

Most people that watch OTA TV programs don't want to be challenged. They're not looking for a new concept or new characters. Why do you think there have been so many CSI and Law & Order spinoffs in the past two decades? People that watch OTA Network TV want familiarity.

If you want to be challenged as a viewer, that void can be filled with programming from HBO, Showtime, Starz, Netflix and Amazon original programming, not CBS or NBC or Fox or ABC. OTA's don't have the budgets nor the freedom that Premium Cable channels, or even networks like AMC have, in creating programming.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by JD10367

So now we have "Rush Hour" on TV (which, honestly, isn't horrible), and we'll be getting "Lethal Weapon" and now "MacGyver". **** it, man, just remake everything from the 70s and 80s. We've already had "Charlie's Angels" and "Dukes of Hazzard" movies, might as well just do it all. Update "The Love Boat", "Fantasy Island", "T.J. Hooker", "The Fall Guy", whatever. Bad enough Hollywood has no originality any more, now TV doesn't either. They let interesting shows die, like "Firefly" and "The Dresden Files" and, more recently, mildly interesting premises like Ioan Gruffudd's immortal MD on "Forever", or even Poppy Montgomery's perfect recall on "Unforgettable". But they'll redo every single thing from our youth.

When companies go the reboot way, they're hoping lightning will strike twice, and banking on nostalgia to help set it up. IMO, the problem is that they usually either misunderstand what made the original a success, or they misread the current era's willingness to watch an updated, often majorly altered, version.

It sure as hell isn't about viewers wanting, or not wanting, to be challenged.

[007]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

First off, **** you.



I've explained this a ****ing HUNDRED times for stupid dumb****s such as yourself.

Every year, OTA networks air completely new shows and concepts, at the expense of tens of millions of dollars, with the hope of finding an audience. It rarely happens, as dozens of shows are cancelled each year due to poor ratings and general indifference.

Using a concept that has previously connected with an audience has slightly less risk involved but risk nonetheless.

Most people that watch OTA TV programs don't want to be challenged. They're not looking for a new concept or new characters. Why do you think there have been so many CSI and Law & Order spinoffs in the past two decades? People that watch OTA Network TV want familiarity.

If you want to be challenged as a viewer, that void can be filled with programming from HBO, Showtime, Starz, Netflix and Amazon original programming, not CBS or NBC or Fox or ABC. OTA's don't have the budgets nor the freedom that Premium Cable channels, or even networks like AMC have, in creating programming.

While I understand your viewpoint I don't necessarily agree with it. Part of the problem with network is they are bound by different rules than cable and pay channels. One of my biggest issues is the cost of cable in general. Too many worthless channels and most of the good stuff is hidden behind a paywall for premium channels. I'm just not willing to spend that kind of money.

CW and Fox are at least trying to rock the boat so I generally give their programs a shot. NBC, CBS, and ABC generally stick with what works but that doesn't make all their content bad either. I like some familiarity with some challenge as you put it.

The biggest problem these days is the cost of programming. More and more people are cutting the cord and it is going to make networks take less and less risks because of that. Just my opinion of course but thats how I see things right now.

[Deberg_1990]

This actually looks like it's right in the CBS 'blue hair' wheelhouse.

I expect a hit

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Guru

While I understand your viewpoint I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's not a viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Guru

Part of the problem with network is they are bound by different rules than cable and pay channels.

Which is what I mentioned earlier. Premium Cable channels aren't bound by the FCC rules, so expecting a Game of Thrones or a Veep or a Black Sails, et al, is silly.

Originally Posted by Guru

One of my biggest issues is the cost of cable in general. Too many worthless channels and most of the good stuff is hidden behind a paywall for premium channels. I'm just not willing to spend that kind of money.

Personally, I find it less expensive than ever.

Originally Posted by Guru

CW and Fox are at least trying to rock the boat so I generally give their programs a shot. NBC, CBS, and ABC generally stick with what works but that doesn't make all their content bad either. I like some familiarity with some challenge as you put it.

What "boat" are the CW and Fox rocking? The CW appeals to Millennials and the burgeoning DCU. Fox? Fox just cancelled a bevy of shows including Grandfathered and The Grinder. Those were family shows that had familiar stars, smart scripts which were also well produced. They failed.

So what's next? Well, the CW gets Super Girl, which failed at CBS and Fox goes back to the well with a new version of 24 and Prison Break.

I don't see that as boat rocking.

Originally Posted by Guru

The biggest problem these days is the cost of programming. More and more people are cutting the cord and it is going to make networks take less and less risks because of that. Just my opinion of course but thats how I see things right now.

Yeah, that's wrong. People can "cut the cord" but that doesn't mean that advertising, which funds the programs, will cease to exist. Netflix and Amazon fund their programming through a monthly fee, so if a project is too costly for an OTA or not appropriate (Kimmy Schmidt, for example), those programs will end up on Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

As a matter of fact, original programming for non-OTA's is at an all time high most actors, even topline A-listers, want to be a part of the landscape more than ever.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Nail on the head, you have hit. I don't think I'll tune in. I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in CBS.

I will say that some of the comedy is forced. Like the bubble gum thing. Come on. You're writing to the face that the audience knows he Okie engineers everything. If it is full of that it will suck. If it is good as a stand alone it will work. If you're planning on pure nostalgia views it's going to be bad.

Smug jackass is right. That's not macgyver. It may work, but it will have to work as stand alone.



Some of it is on the studios (Firefly - **** you FOX). Some of it is on the viewers. Largely the TV watching audience is criminally stupid. That's why you're seeing the shows that take a little brain power to consume go to other mediums.

Yes, Hollywood deserves some hate, but not nearly as much as stupid people.

Idiocracy coming true...

[CrazyPhuD]

#keepMacGyverBlack

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

Idiocracy coming true...

Possibly the most underrated movie of all time.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

As a matter of fact, original programming for non-OTA's is at an all time high most actors, even topline A-listers, want to be a part of the landscape more than ever.

Its interesting to me how TV has become the smart medium for writers and actors. Generally, the movies have become dumbed down, whiz bang, in your face entertainment.

Just some all around, great work being done in TV today. I wish i had more time to watch all these great series.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Its interesting to me how TV has become the smart medium for writers and actors. Generally, the movies have become dumbed down, whiz bang, in your face entertainment.

Just some all around, great work being done in TV today. I wish i had more time to watch all these great series.

Agreed. TV shows offer a longer exploration of a story. Time to become engrossed and invested in a world. Movies are short and quick, and then you wait 2 to 3 years for the sequel. TV shows can get you content of 10-20 hours every year, where a long movie series will get you what, 1-2? At this point I'll take the TV medium any day, although Marvel/Disney is doing a fantastic job of pumping out lots of content across mediums.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

like all CBS shows...it will be pure shit

[mdchiefsfan]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Possibly the most underrated movie of all time.

the best documentary ever recorded, I tell you!

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Possibly the most underrated movie of all time.

Started out a comedy, turned into a futuristic documentary.

[007]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It's not a viewpoint.



Which is what I mentioned earlier. Premium Cable channels aren't bound by the FCC rules, so expecting a Game of Thrones or a Veep or a Black Sails, et al, is silly.




Personally, I find it less expensive than ever.




What "boat" are the CW and Fox rocking? The CW appeals to Millennials and the burgeoning DCU. Fox? Fox just cancelled a bevy of shows including Grandfathered and The Grinder. Those were family shows that had familiar stars, smart scripts which were also well produced. They failed.

So what's next? Well, the CW gets Super Girl, which failed at CBS and Fox goes back to the well with a new version of 24 and Prison Break.

I don't see that as boat rocking.



Yeah, that's wrong. People can "cut the cord" but that doesn't mean that advertising, which funds the programs, will cease to exist. Netflix and Amazon fund their programming through a monthly fee, so if a project is too costly for an OTA or not appropriate (Kimmy Schmidt, for example), those programs will end up on Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

As a matter of fact, original programming for non-OTA's is at an all time high most actors, even topline A-listers, want to be a part of the landscape more than ever.

I find the cost of cable today to be extremely high for what they offer. Then to get the good channels you have to pay even more. To get everything you probably have would cost me $120 which is insane in my own opinion. I know we come from opposite sides of the spectrum and that it is probably reasonable to you. We get way more value out of Internet than we ever got from cable TV.

Eventually the ISP providers are going to start bleeding us dry on that price too but as long as the internet stays somewhat unregulated, at least where it is today, I can justify the cost much easier than cable. We cut the cord and got Netflix. I'm perfectly happy with that. We do have amazon prime as well but until they provide SD and HD options for all movies and shows I rarely use it.

I would prefer to just leave it at that. You and I prefer different types of content and will most likely not agree on what is good and what is not which is perfectly fine.

EDIT

What really pisses me off about cable and satellite companies is the nickel and diming bull****. This is our current rate. Oh, you want HD? Thats extra. Oh, you want DVR? Thats extra. Oh, you want multiple connections in the same house? Thats exta. Oh, you want the ability to watch DVR content in all rooms? Thats extra. Oh, you want to watch all these excellent new shows? Those are on premium channels and thats extra too.

So their $$60 for standard programming jumps to over $100 and I won't watch 75% of the crap available on it. The highest bill I've seen is my dads and he is paying over $175 per month and doesn't even have premium channels.. Thats just robbery.

[cabletech94]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

It's not a viewpoint.



Which is what I mentioned earlier. Premium Cable channels aren't bound by the FCC rules, so expecting a Game of Thrones or a Veep or a Black Sails, et al, is silly.




Personally, I find it less expensive than ever.




What "boat" are the CW and Fox rocking? The CW appeals to Millennials and the burgeoning DCU. Fox? Fox just cancelled a bevy of shows including Grandfathered and The Grinder. Those were family shows that had familiar stars, smart scripts which were also well produced. They failed.

So what's next? Well, the CW gets Super Girl, which failed at CBS and Fox goes back to the well with a new version of 24 and Prison Break.

I don't see that as boat rocking.



Yeah, that's wrong. People can "cut the cord" but that doesn't mean that advertising, which funds the programs, will cease to exist. Netflix and Amazon fund their programming through a monthly fee, so if a project is too costly for an OTA or not appropriate (Kimmy Schmidt, for example), those programs will end up on Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

As a matter of fact, original programming for non-OTA's is at an all time high most actors, even topline A-listers, want to be a part of the landscape more than ever.

Prison Break?! FTMFW Y'all!!!