HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jan 2005 to 18 Jan 2005 (#2005-6)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:00:05 -0500
There are 5 messages totalling 277 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. The "What if?" Season 6 (4)
2. HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jan 2005 to 17 Jan 2005 (#2005-5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:26:45 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
I said:
> >> TV is a business. Businesses run on money.
Nina:
> > Yes, yes. But my quibble is that there shouldn't be a
> difference in the 2 things Jen was talking about above. Why do "they"
(the $ people & those
> > slavish to them) assume that a quality show w/ a rabid but
> modest fanbase can be "fixed" (changed 90%) to suddenly draw in hoards of
viewers? I
> > don't recall it ever happening. Really--what stellar show got dumbed
down &
> > bimboed up (HL:TS season sux's apparent strategy) to become a hit?
John:
> Ultimately, whether executed well or not, the ONLY way that a sixth season
was ever
> going to be greenlighted was a) it was shorter (and therefore
> cheaper) and ) it acted as a springboard of sorts for a spin-off. NO
other
> reason. The Highlander series was no longer pulling in the decent numbers
and couldn't
> continue in similar form - it didn't make business sense.
I think Nina's point was that if HL no longer made sense from a business POV
then it would have been better to just end it than try to "fix" it, given
that these fixes never work. If a series is pulling in 1 million viewers
after 3 or 4 years, rearranging the story-line and changing 75% of the
characters will *not* increase the audience to 2 million. I'd wager it never
has. HL:TS wasn't pulling in enough viewers- did TPTB seriously think that a
new show that only resembled HL would suddenly find a huge new audience?
When it came at the expense of the old fan base? Show me a case where this
has worked.
Nina:
> > It seems much more sensible to try growing the fan base by doing what
> > worked earlier for the show, only doing it more & doing it bigger &
> better. Sort of like how Henson did the Farscape mini-series, & how Joss
Whedon seems
> > to be doing the Firefly movie.
John:
> But, as above, what worked earlier for the show WASN'T working.
> The ratings were falling dramatically. Decision: do you invest a ton more
money in a
> failing project in the hopes it turns it around, or do you go
> elsewhere and try your luck?
Personally, if it were my money, I'd go elsewhere and try my luck. Many of
the factors that killed Highlander were beyond D/P's control - the biggest
one being when it would be shown in each market. In DC, it was sometimes
on Saturday afternoon, sometimes on Sunday night, sometimes in the wee hours
of the night mid-week, etc. It was preempted by basketball games, by movies,
by whim of the station management. I was a dedicated watcher <eg> and *I*
had trouble following it around week after week. Casual viewers had no hope
pf making it "must see TV" . It was the same everywhere- odd hours and
shifting schedules. It takes a great deal of luck for a syndicated series
to become popular enough to merit a steady, easily accessible time slot.
Having seen HL sink in the ratings, I wouldn't have bothered to pour $10
million more into HL-lite or Fem-HL. I'd have looked for a new idea.
As a fan of HL:TS series I would , of course, have preferred that D/P
mortgaged their houses and made HL exactly as I wanted it to be. But I
understand they had other priorities Unfortunately, I think their attempt to
rebuild the franchise as a kick-ass female show did more damage than good.
It didn't interest any new fans (as evidenced by Raven's ratings) and
alienated the old fans.
> The examples of Henson and Whedon may be misleading. <snip>
But D/P *did* get money to make a movie after HL:TS died. They just made a
crappy movie instead of a good one. Henson made a great mini-series to
follow Farscape and , from all reports Whedon has made a great movie to
follow-up Firefly. D/P seem incapable at this point of making anything
watchable in the HL universe.
> I would have loved Highlander to continue. I still would. But in
> the current climate do we grumble that no-one is giving Highlander an even
> break, or do we criticise Davis/Panzer for tilting at every single
windmill that might
> get a HL project off the ground in some way shape or form. The ideal is
> somewhere in the middle. But Hollywood rarely deals with 'middle'.
I guess I do criticize D/P for tossing out every lame-ass idea they come up
with ...despite the fact that I said that it is business and they are
business men. Even great ideas can't be milked forever- just as you can't
copy a copy of a copy indefinitely. At some point the last iteration is
unrecognizable when placed next to the original. HL:The Movie was a pretty
cool original idea. The Series was a very good quality copy. Each successive
movie has been worse than the preceding one and Raven was certainly a very
poor copy of HL:TS. I think , at some point, one has to say "this idea is
spent". ..to resist the urge to make one more spin-off or one more movie set
in one more alternative universe. I understand that it's easier to get money
to make a movie or TV series if you can say it's HL or Star Trek or
Law&Order because the money men understand what those things are- a new idea
requires more effort to sell. But surely it must also be true that it
becomes harder to get money each time a project flops.
I suppose it's just hard, from a fan's perspective, to grasp that the people
who make TV series and movies are not necessarily as enamored of the final
product as they are the paycheck that accompanies it. D/P didn't produce
HL:TS because they loved Duncan MacLeod and his moral dilemmas. They
produced HL:TS because they were making money. If they could no longer make
money on HL:TS and they could make money producing "Hot Immortal Bimbos in
Leather", then that is what they would make. If there was no money for dark
angsty tales of morality and there was lots of money for vacuous tales of
tossed hair and pouty lips, then they would go where the money was. The
writers were equally willing to write scripts that involved ethical choices
as fashion choices. It would be nice to think that they would refuse to
dumb-down HL:TS on principle but that's asking way too much of any
businessman or any working writer.
Wendy( I have decided that both HL:The Source and HL:Trinity were just
made-up projects designed to create some press about HL while D/P took an
extended vacation)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:02:28 -0800
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jan 2005 to 17 Jan 2005 (#2005-5)
Although I'm not sure what happened during Season 6
and 7 of Buffy...seemed like things started to go
downhill. I don't dislike S6 as much as some fans do
but many didn't like the evil Willow ending. And in
Season 7 things did seem to get really bad. But it
wasn't the same thing as Highlander, was it?
I just don't get networks sometimes. I don't know much
about Fox and Firefly but the WB seems to have done
the same thing with Angel...if they want to make money
you'd think they'd have listened to the fans and
un-axed the show but they didn't want to. And the
series really didn't get a chance to end properly
because of it; we got left with a cliffhanger.
I agree about PD and Dimension...Dimension is supposed
to be putting out David Boreanaz's new Crow film and
bad reviews are coming in already. Made me wonder
"well, it's Dimension, what'd you expect?"
Mel (won't hold breath about new HL projects until she
starts seeing good reviews to convince her the
project's worth seeing)
Other creative people in the genre field like Henson &
Whedon have lately been able to overcome outright
cancellation & continue telling their
convoluted, dark & thought-provoking stories w/o
ruining things in a doomed attempt to pander to the
masses. Compared to DPP, they've done far better
for their franchises, their fans &--of course--for
themselves.
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
NickNatpacker,Knight of the Cross;Duncan, Tessa and Joe flags-waver, diehard Buffy/Angel and Wesley/Fred shipper/BTVS and Angelholic
http//:groups.yahoo.com/group/Buffy_the_dark_world BTVS AU rpg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:32:49 -0800
From: Chris Morin <chrisjmorin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
>Soooo much better than what we actually got. Season
6,
>even after seven years, still leaves a bitter taste
in
>my mouth. :(
Couldn't have said it any better. Season six was such
a major disappointment. After seeing the two shot
clips for the "Future Season 6" I thought it would
have been a really nice change and would have helped
make Highlander fresh again. I understand what they
tried to do with season 6. I just think they failed
miserably at it.
I think TPTB really missed a few opportunities with
H:TS. I really feel they should have made the Horsemen
last a whole lot longer in season five and have Kronos
take Richie's head. It would have made so much more
sense and would have been a great way to end season 5.
Chris
http://www.chrismorin.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:43:25 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
Chris--
> I really feel they should have made the Horsemen
> last a whole lot longer in season five and have Kronos
> take Richie's head. It would have made so much more
> sense and would have been a great way to end season 5.
I'd have preferred anyone killing Richie, other than having DM do it.
Amanda could have whacked him for a fashion violation. Richie could have
gotten between Methos & a beer. As long as Richie died....
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:05:27 -0000
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
> Couldn't have said it any better. Season six was such
> a major disappointment. After seeing the two shot
> clips for the "Future Season 6" I thought it would
> have been a really nice change and would have helped
> make Highlander fresh again. I understand what they
> tried to do with season 6. I just think they failed
> miserably at it.
> Chris
Funnily enough I hated the idea. One of Highlander's strengths is that it
largely took place in the 'real' world or at least one which we could
recognise and might be just out of sight. Taking the series into the future
would have pretty much doomed the concept for me, turnign it into much more
science-fictiony areas. For such a concept you go hi-tech or low-tech
(probably the latter the way thigns were set up) and BOTH require money if
they are to look decent. If you take the concept/scale that Ahriman has
virtually taken over the world or at least changed it beyond the present
day, then you need a massive budget or it shows.
John
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 17 Jan 2005 to 18 Jan 2005 (#2005-6)
*************************************************************