LizaD

Quantico gets enough lift on C3/C7 that it ends up beating Once. It's also cheaper than an oldie like Once. All the Shonda shows, except the newest one, get significant C3/C7 increases. When all is said and done, Once ends up losing ground relative to the other shows and is near the bottom of the heap of the shows left. When Once goes fractional next season, I don't know if the math is going to work out for them. This development season was Lee's so Dungey is going to get a pass if most of them bombs. She can clear the deck somewhat for her development season. But there is A LOT of excitement and betting on Kiefer's show. Kerry and Viola also got development deals with ABC so it'll be interesting to see if they produce anything for 17-18 and where it'll go.

That's looking at rounded numbers. The drop is negligible. The actual numbers are 1.158 for last week and 1.146 for this week. I haven't seen the show nor kept up with it since last year so I have no opinion on on-screen material based stuff. Source to Spotted Ratings for you guys to go look at. Here's an interesting article that gives you VOD rankings since I've seen some overly optimistic claims that Once gets a huge boost taken into account other viewing methods. Once is not in the top 20 but look at the boost #20 gets. I've been saying forever that with Once, what you see is what you get, but I can't source that to any available public info. This is about the only article I can source for you guys. http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/ratings-fox-fx-programs-dominate-vod-rankings-1201767410/

Yeah they bought a script but I still have my doubts to whether it actually gets made. An all or majority Asian cast in a big production Hollywood movie is unheard of. They'd have to "whitewash" the story and characters to a degree and I don't know how feasible that is with Mulan. It's not exactly like say the controversy over the upcoming Ghost in the Shell. Considering Disney has just about all their animated catalogue in the development pipeline, we'll see.

I can't imagine Disney ever touching a live action Mulan. If you don't mind subtitles and bad subtitles at that, there's a China released film. I think it was called Hua Mulan and you can find it on youtube. Jackie Chan's kid is in it which is how I found it, looking for Jackie Chan movies. It's done in the style of period epic war movies so yeah no Mushu. But I did like Mushu. The "dishonor on your cow" line cracks me up everytime and I don't even know why except that I'm easily entertained. ETA: Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAETFTIo_I

In this case it was ABC studios, that did what looks like a wholesale submission for everything directly under their banner. It was probably some kind of publicity release by ABC, this according to Gold Derby. That kind of thoughtless mass submissions for sure went by credits. Only the ones with a real shot, do the studio bother to work with actor, PR rep, agents etc. to strategize and campaign for an actual nomination. And since everyone on Once has zero chance of getting a nomination, it's silly to get in a tizzy over it. Seriously the amount of submissions in each category is staggering. I think there were like 500 "submissions" in each of the big acting categories. 99% of voters will never even see 99% of the submissions. It's straight to the big names.

DVR numbers in terms of L+3/L+7 are completely irrelevant. They're only published for the networks' PR sakes. C3 ratings for Once pretty much look like live ratings. No one in advertising give 2 craps about L+3/L+7 and in fact don't even see them. Streaming/Online/VOD revenue a drop in the bucket right now. At the upfronts last year, the big push was for an "across all platforms" package with traditional tv and the other is pushing for hard core data driven-programmatic advertising. The latter hasn't happened yet because it's new frontier. I have no info on international stuff, so here's a recent article. But I'm guessing no network has ever relied on international sales to keep a show going. Look at Body of Proof. It's been cancelled but it's still more popular than Once in the only place Once pops up, in Russia. http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/most-popular-us-tv-shows-around-the-world.html The biggest pro to Netflix and their ilk is to drive new and/or lapsed viewers to watch the show live. That's network convention. Key here is still LIVE viewers as the end goal. It's usually credited with year to year growth like seen with Breaking Bad or any number of procedurals on CBS or with Greys/Scandal. That has never happened for Once, aside from the Frozen anomaly. Licensing deals are a separate issue. As for if S6 will be their last or not? I'm going to put my money on it. There is not another Hail Mary left for them ala Frozen. This show is not cheap to produce. I believe Robert said at some interview that it costs some $5 million per episode. It was the interviews duing Barney/Ediburgh Film Festival press stuff. Anybody think they sold $5 million bucks worth of Funko dolls?

Yes. ABC Sunday shows are strictly set by the bookends of Oscars and Billboard Music Awards. Count the weeks. That's the only determining factor.

I know the 5 years number has been thrown around forever in regards to Robert's contract but Danny Boyle said they have to film in May-June because of RC and Jonny Lee Miller's commitment to their tv shows. He specifically pointed those 2 out and added something like if it didn't happen in May-June it wasn't going to happen for a couple of years. That tells me RC has a longer contract. That said I'm sure if he really wanted out, they would let him go.

Quantico gets a bigger boost in C3 than Once which is nearly negligible. When all is said and done, Quantico averaged out to be higher than Once, at least it was for the first couple of months. And yes I know that comes with the "Quantico is a freshman show" vs a vet show note.

It's a year-to-year comparison. Fall last year was Frozen so yes the y-t-y decline compared to Frozen is probably the steepest it's been considering what Frozen did for the show. The editorial writers aren't necessarily viewers of the show. You get hard numbers to write up a short article and your job is done. They're not looking for anomalies or in-show reasonings or explanations.

Her stylist is Ilaria Urbinati, one of the top stylists in the industry. I'm glad Ginny got to do a pretty big project outside of Once since she's basically wasted on this show.

The agency more or less chooses. Not everyone can afford or want to pay for a Scandal spot. There's also been a push for more targeted advertising recently and believe it or not Scandal viewers might not best fit some targeted demos they're looking for and other spots would be better. Also remember that there are other major networks and other time spots to work with in any number of combinations. Most ad campaigns don't just run on Thursdays at 9pm on ABC as an example. On the network side it makes sense for them, because if there's competition for that spot, it drives up the rates. That's why all the hype is geared towards presenting the shows specifically and individually at upfront. Well besides Shonda's Thursday. Could you be thinking of local ads? I don't know a lot about that side but I think those are sold through the local affiliates and the local affiliates determine the schedule. My money is on those times, like Saturday, getting more local spots than what you would see for Scandal prime time.

Actually ad buyers can and do pick what "show" they want to buy a 30 second spot for, for their clients needs. It's not quite as simple as "I want a 30 second spot at 9:45 during Scandal on 2/18 and only this spot" but they are buying airtime during certain show's airings. It's complicated and far too involved to really get into. Basics are for what I think this forum is interested in, agencies buy in bulk at the upfronts for multiple clients all with different needs, targets and budgets. Say an agency has a client that wants to launch a new product with the campaign planned for February with a certain budget and certain targets. They look at the data and it is a crap load of data that is far more detailed than, here's the 1.5, for 18-49 Sunday at 8:30, and decide the best fit. So one client's needs might be ad time during Scandal while another's clients needs could be better met with time during Galavant. The time that they bought comes with certain CPM guarantees by the network. If they're not met, the network has deliver make goods which comes in the form of additional airtime elsewhere to make up the difference or other recompense. Also buying at upfronts is really just a commitment. They can cancel a certain portion of their commitments at various times throughout the season. And none of this involves the sports advertising which is a different beast.

They are absolutely full of shit as usual. They were not #1 picked show to be cancelled by critics. Even the critics that hated the pilot and called it DOA had other shows worse than Once. That doesn't make them top dog. Maybe they're talking about a random angry twitter. That's probably the only "critics" they read. Seriously here's a sample compilation of all the pilots reviewed for that season. They were middling at worst.http://www.metacritic.com/feature/pilot-reviews-for-2011-tv-season?page=1 Look at Rottentomaotes for the pilot. It's got a 78% fresh rating from critics. That really spells #1 show to be canceled? And by the time the ratings for the pilot came around, it was game over for the prediction game. At the upfronts, the pilot was well received, relatively. It was not a huge gamble by ABC. It got them the 2nd highest ad rate of their new shows that season. Yeah such a huge risk that. It was picked to be the #1 show canceled yet advertisers were willing to pay top dollar of the new ABC shows? ABC saw it as such a huge gamble they priced it the highest of the new bunch and were willing to risk having to deliver make-goods later on? Please. They can go peddle that crap to the people buying bridges. Maybe if Lost never happened, it would've been a huge gamble for them. And I love their sly pat on the back with their in your face "hopeful" show. Coming from the bozos that wanted to kill off Prince Charming 2 mins into the pilot? The ones that had to be reined in by network executives with how is killing Charming hopeful and enticing to women?

That's just flat out wrong. This show was always advertised as character-driven, from top to bottom. ABC doesn't do "plot-driven" dramas. They've branded the ENTIRE network as character driven and yes that's straight from Paul Lee and everyone down below. They scoff at those plot-driven stuff, e.g. procedurals and CBS. Go back to the interviews when A&E first talked about the conception of the show. It's all character, character, character. I dare anyone to find the words "plot-driven" used in a positive or promoting manner coming from Paul Lee, or any exec at ABC, about any show on ABC. Now whether the show is actually character driven or not, is debateable but it was and is advertised as such. As for "millions" of kids watching this show? That is downright laughable and just plain false. If you really had access to the kids 2-11 demos you would know that this show has never, ever had "millions" of kids 2-11 watching it. Not even at its highest series 2-11 demos with Frozen, followed by S1. It's not even the top show on ABC for demos 2-11, S1 again being the exception. Also go look at the press releases from ABC. They call Once, scripted "adult drama." I don't know when they started adding that qualifier to Once, but its there.

Well this might be where A&E diverged from Disney/ABC. After all contracts are under ABC not A&E. I do agree ABC considers those 3 the stars of the show. Just go back to any of the casting announcements made for the pilot. Every single press release had JM bagging the "lead" role as Anna, you know back when the "lead" character was still named Anna. So obviously ABC considered "Anna" the lead role. It was also only those 3 that a big fanfare was made for their casting. And ABC releases those announcements to the press so it's not like the media was pulling it out from their asses. That's also probably why you get the ill-conceived stuff like the Oscars promo highlighting JM, RC and Disney property when the thing was basically flat-out false advertisement. Or why JM consistently gets the most screentime even if a whole lot of it is spent picking her nose or propping. Maybe it was an easier sell to network execs that the show was about Snow White and her kid saving fairy tale people living in the real world as opposed to a show about a murdering raping Evil Queen getting her happy ending?

I cannot believe A&E just straight up bastardized Whedon's material. Not content with just fucking up Disney's materials, or Baum's, they've now moved on to see what other materials they can turn into pure crap. You want to know why A&E will forever be amateurs? Because on Buffy, after that episode when Buffy had to stab Angel, that show and its characters were never the same again. Buffy and Angel were never the same again. It was a real emotionally manipulative moment from the writers and they followed through with the consequences. This show? Back to status quo in 2 seconds. They are downright allergic to change or consequences. I hope her role is minimal, so minimal as to be nonexistent. Her work on this show has really turned me off, big time. Jessica Jones is too good to be messed up by crappy writers. I'm loving that show and most of its characters, and now I can dump this show and stop wasting my time when there are superior shows out there.

This show is so stupid, I think I literally felt my brain cells dying in agony while half watching, half fast forwarding it. This is probably the point I wave my white flag. Neither Robert nor a short stint of suited Robbie Kay, nor going, "well at least the actors are giving it their all," is going to do it anymore.

Well according to JM's interview, it's a short film because that was the concept the band was going for. They went to her with the idea that they wanted their music to be the soundtrack of a short silent film. It was beautifully shot and looked more expensive than an episode of Once. How is that possible? The story itself looks like a hot mess however. Maybe cause they only had 6 weeks to get it together. Or they didn't get enough footage or something? Because it looked like she was trying to stretch out limited footage to fit all the songs they had. Also I miss Rose/Tink on Once. On the other hand she's clearly got the better gig on iZombie and elsewhere.

I never said he didn't have flaws or insecurities or that he wasn't self-loathing. All I said was those qualities of his aren't tied to Emma and feeling unworthy of her. They're separate and distinct from her because it's about his own self-worth. All my posts' point was exactly that and it's there in black and white. Woobifying him that he feels so unworthy of Emma and that's driving his actions makes him weak and whiny. We'll just have to agree to disagree about this whole Emma inferior thing. Here's another reason why it's been Hook ruining and bad writing since the dumb twist occurred. People want to justify Hook's choice to die and leave Emma because he's scared of "becoming the thing he hates most." That is absolutely his right. His life, his choice. He also said it was because he wanted Emma to be happy. Those happen to be the exact same reasons Neal had for dumping Emma. He was running scared of having to face his father and getting sucked back into the DO drama, the thing he hates the most. He also said it was because he wanted Emma to be happy without him by letting her go find her home. Letting her go to prison? He wanted her to hate him enough so that she would let him go. Sounds familiar no? The only difference in the situation is that Emma didn't get a chance to thwart Neal while she did with Hook. Hook also got to tell Emma to her face to let him go cause he's scared while Neal just snuck off, so he comes out slightly ahead. Yet the motivations are exactly the same and the main reason, the Dark One, is also the same. That is what happened when they took away Hook's fighter persona. Hell they even matched up with the promise of a new home thing right before it went to hell. Neal promised her Tallahassee and Hook, the house. Emma took a risk to go fetch the watches and it blew up in her face and landed in prison. Emma risked basically everything for Hook and it blew up in her face and ended up as DS. Emma went to go wallow in Tallahassee anyway just like she's wallowing in that house. Does this make Merlin, August? I mean they both spent time as trees right?

Why does everything have to be about Emma? Yeah that says he wants to hold her with both hands. Not Emma wants. All he says of Emma's wants is for him to hold her maybe but no mention of any limbs. The 2nd part is his wants. That's what he wants to do for himself, and for his benefit, is to hug the woman with 2 hands. Nowhere in there does it say, "Emma deserves a first date with a man with 2 hands." Or "Emma wants a man to be able to feel her up with 2 hands." That's quite a leap to be made. So he doesn't buy that he's a hero but nowhere does he say, "you shouldn't be with me Emma cause I'm not a hero and you deserve a hero." His whole stupid line about villains not getting their happy endings to reinforce Woegina's stupid ass plot, was also about him. He's a villain so he can't get HIS happy ending. That's nowhere near the same ballpark as "I can't get my happy ending because I'm a villain and Emma deserves better than a villain." He never even mentioned Emma's happy ending or considered hers at all. He thinks villainy is his identity while hero Emma is a job title, not her identity. Because it would be the height of ridiculousness for Hook, a low dirty evil pirate to think he can SAVE the Crown Princess Savior right? Yet somehow underneath all that crippling insecurity and inferiority he had the audacity to declare that he could. Must've been some strong crack he was smoking. Complexity? Just shoddy writing because he's a plot point to prop Emma's story apparently. Ok fine. Everything's about Emma. Hook redeemed himself to be worthy of Emma because he felt inferior. He turned dark at the drop of a hat cause he thought Emma didn't have faith in him to be good. Because the only reason he's managed to stay good so far was because of Emma. He was nothing but a puppy dog begging for scraps from Emma. Man what a weak and whiny character. Isn't this what the Hook haters have been saying all along? Ok I can see it now.

Because he doesn't see Emma as Crown Princess Savior and I don't think he ever has. He sees Emma, the little lost girl, orphan, thief, chick with abandonment issues, loner, exactly like him, etc. Remember when he told her he came to "save her" when he went to go fetch her from NYC? Everyone else wanted Emma the (incompetent) Savior to save their asses. That also reminds me, he also tried a TLK on her. I don't think he would've done that if he didn't believe there was a chance that was true. And if he believed that, then no I can't reconcile possibly True Love with Boohoo I'm so inferior to my true love. Like what? It's not that hard to reconcile for me. You can be a terrrible person and know it, and still be right for someone out there. Emma doesn't need an upright model citizen Male Savior does she? She's not exactly a model citizen herself, even before the DS stuff. Emma needs someone who will get through her walls and won't abandon her and Hook thought he was that person. I think that was basically end of story for him. He's not her dad, he doesn't need to want the "best things in life" for her, just their mutual happiness. Although he kind of turned into that on his pseudo death bed. The whole thing with the inferiority to Emma thing is that it then ties his redemption directly to and because of Emma and yet this thread is filled with posts adamantly proclaiming that his desire for redemption had nothing to do with winning Emma. So which is it? Because those are the 2 things that aren't compatible.

Exactly! All those things you listed is why I said Hook up until now was always the fighter and his character took a beating when he didn't even for a second put a fight. He didn't even think about it. So yeah he's been fighting all this time and then perhaps in the biggest fight in his life ever, he folded like a house of cards. I think this is largely fandom projected or manufactured. There's been ZERO onscreen evidence that any point in time he thought that he was inferior. When she left him at the beanstalk and said she couldn't trust him, he didn't think it was because he was a pirate even though Emma clearly said so. He blamed it on Emma's trust issues, which was true. When Emma was going around being grumpy cat "I Luv NYC" he didn't think it was because she didn't want him. He knew that it was because of her abandonment issues. Again. Which he also called her out on. Again. He stepped aside for Neal because he was that confident that he would end up winning. When Emma was listing the shitty qualities of non-DS, Hook said that he liked those things,meaning he accepted them as flaws but he liked them anyway. He wasn't all, "oh no you're perfect." Pan called him all sorts of names to get him to feel inferior and Charming did so too, to a lesser degree. But he turned around and told Emma the truth about Neal anyway. He also bluntly told her he liked her, multiple times. He also bluntly rejected DS, multiple times. How does that compute to an inferiority complex? He's also never put Emma on a pedestal. I thought part of their whole couple identity was Hook being able to call Emma out? He can't do that and put her on a pedestal, because then there would be nothing to call out. It's contradictory. Inferiority complex also contradicts the whole "kindred spirits" thing they've been repeating ad nauseam since day 1. I honestly think people confuse his lack of faith in their relationship and in Emma as him thinking himself inferior. He always think Emma's insecurities are inevitably going to rear its ugly head and he's not entirely wrong about that. Because I haven't seen one single instance where he thought that it was something about him that stood in the way of their relationship. It was always about Emma's walls ruining their thing. Hook's always been confident in himself and I think it's a disservice to his character to see him as that weak. His self-loathing has nothing to do with feeling inferior to Emma. It's about his own feelings about his villainous actions and a dose of daddy abandonment. It has nothing to do with Emma at all, nor does it feature largely in their interactions. He's judging himself on a universal moral scale, not on a relative "am I worthy of Emma" scale. That's why I said the last 2 episodes are OOC for Hook and not in a good way.

Well Rump is equally driven by self-loathing and I'd say Emma is too. Rump's "cowardice" directly stems from his self-loathing so I think it's just quibbling. In fact I think Rump's self-loathing is more often times than not mislabeled as cowardice. Of course people who hate Rump won't see it that way because for some reason, self-loathing is more acceptable than cowardice. But bottom line is Hook didn't even put up a fight. But I find it hard to believe that someone who's really that self-loathing would hard-core pursue Emma like he did. If he didn't think he was "worthy" of Emma why would he pursue her in the first place? Besides their whole schtick is that they are the same, equals. If he truly understood Emma and he's coming from a place of self-loathing then he should know that that's where Emma is coming from too. Since people see the "orphan" line as telling her to "woman up" he too needs to "man up" and stop wallowing in his insecurities. Yeah except him living with her is part of her happiness. So he unilaterally decided that Emma could be just fine and dandy and happy without him, without really listening to her. And she did the same when she decided unilaterally that she was going to fight for him in the way he didn't want. I think it's debatable whether Emma's happiness or his own cowardice was the main driver. I tend to think it's equally both seeing as how he mentioned both reasons for why he didn't want to risk being the DO.

I think people are too focused on the CS relationship but it's actually Hook's character that took a beating and it had nothing to do with Emma. At all. I've said this before, right after Birth, that Hook was always positioned as a "fighter." I see it around a lot in the Hook fandom itself that there's a lot of "pride" in his line during his duel with Rump about a "man unwilling to fight for what he wants deserves what he gets." That's part of the whole Rump is a coward narrative vs Hook. First him rather dying than facing darkness is cowardly within the frame of how the show calls Rump a coward. He didn't fight for himself and he didn't fight for Emma, exactly what he looked down his nose on Rump for, for not fighting for Milah. He rather die than face temptation and Rump rather live than risk dying. Then that is further compounded by him not even attempting to fight before giving into the darkness. He's basically like whelp I'm weak so there's no use fighting. When the chips are down, he just gave up. So in my opinion, when Colin talks about "becoming the thing he hates the most" and he's referring to Dark One Rump, I think there's a bit of irony there in that he only got to that point because he became coward Rump first and coward Rump is the reason Rump took on the DO.