The PRO Season Five Thread!

[Briangate78]

The thing is, a network will invest in a show if it is in their best interests to do so. With SG-1, they decided that it was not - although they seem to have been prepared to consider it if it was offered to them for a lower price. Ratings were an issue in the sense that higher ratings can allow them to charge more for ad time, increasing the profitability of a show. The more money they make from it, the more they're willing to invest.

Yup very true. It goes to that balance of Cost for the show and how much revenue they are making for the ads.

[ReganX]

Yup very true. It goes to that balance of Cost for the show and how much revenue they are making for the ads.

Exactly. If you're spending $1,000,000 per episode on a show and making $900,000 per episode from it, then it would be foolish to continue with it but if you can get the same show for $800,000 per episode while still making the same amount of money from it, you might reconsider.

[Briangate78]

Exactly. If you're spending $1,000,000 per episode on a show and making $900,000 per episode from it, then it would be foolish to continue with it but if you can get the same show for $800,000 per episode while still making the same amount of money from it, you might reconsider.

I bet Advertisers are paying good money for commercials during SGA's timeslots. I think that is why these key demographics are so important. Stargate has been known to attract a wide age range in both males and females.

[ReganX]

I bet Advertisers are paying good money for commercials during SGA's timeslots. I think that is why these key demographics are so important. Stargate has been known to attract a wide age range in both males and females.

Yes, the demographics can be as important as the ratings themselves.

[Trek_Girl42]

I'd say that in at least some of those cases, it's just human nature. Their favourite show has been cancelled and they want to be able to blame something or someone else; the ratings system, fans who have stopped watching and another show that is either taking away viewers or getting renewed.

In this case, they see another show, which they perceive as being no more - perhaps less - deserving of renewal getting another season and resent that.

All the blame is rather amusing, considering none of the other shows that get blamed are really at fault. Don't we want other shows on SCI-FI to do decently even if we don't like them? It keeps the channel afloat so that the shows we do like survive, it's a joint effort of several shows doing well, and if one gets cancelled, it gets cancelled, but that's not the fault of the other shows themselves. I was pretty appalled by the blatant bashing Eureka took when SG-1 was cancelled, I don't think Eureka was even close to a factor in that.

Same as I don't blame anything else on SCI-FI for the end of BSG (a decision that I have actually come around to agree with since the dust settled), it's my favourite show of all time, but it's not the fault of Atlantis, or Flash Gordon, or Eureka or ECW that it's ending, and all this flaming of other shows over this sort of thing is ridiculous. In many ways it's bittersweet in the fact that the end of BSG might actually help Atlantis to become SCI-FI's top billed program.

[ReganX]

All the blame is rather amusing, considering none of the other shows that get blamed are really at fault.

By blaming the other shows, they are able to deflect blame from the head of their own show - it's still wonderful and perfect, it's just that the rating system is biased/the network favours Show X/Show Y is stealing all our viewers, etc.

[Briangate78]

All the blame is rather amusing, considering none of the other shows that get blamed are really at fault. Don't we want other shows on SCI-FI to do decently even if we don't like them? It keeps the channel afloat so that the shows we do like survive, it's a joint effort of several shows doing well, and if one gets cancelled, it gets cancelled, but that's not the fault of the other shows themselves. I was pretty appalled by the blatant bashing Eureka took when SG-1 was cancelled, I don't think Eureka was even close to a factor in that.

Same as I don't blame anything else on SCI-FI for the end of BSG (a decision that I have actually come around to agree with since the dust settled), it's my favourite show of all time, but it's not the fault of Atlantis, or Flash Gordon, or Eureka or ECW that it's ending, and all this flaming of other shows over this sort of thing is ridiculous. In many ways it's bittersweet in the fact that the end of BSG might actually help Atlantis to become SCI-FI's top billed program.

People throw it back in my face that DVR is not a issue and it doesn't count. They know as much as I do, and yet the network and producers are making a big stink about it. I wish SGA was in a better time slot and got better "raw live" ratings. It might shut some people up. I know people are bitter because SGA and SG-1 by next year will be the only shows on Sci-fi to have 5 seasons aired. Why? Because SG is a successful franchise and ratings are not the only way to show that.

As per Eureka, I love Eureka. I was not happy it fell to a 1.2, was shocked but it also gave hope for SGA. That 1.2 and 1.4(Finale) it got was the shockwave sent to the network.

[Skydiver]

And, please check out the thread in the forum announcements area, but this thread - along with the anti s5 thread - will be closed. If you want to discuss s5, please visit the discussion thread