I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it would
take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.

In article
<IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
"Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it
> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.

So don't watch it. It really is that simple.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:40:45 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article
> <IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
> "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it
>> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
>
> So don't watch it. It really is that simple.

He does have a point though, they have lost a lot of momentum by not
continuing after the writers strike.

--
"The Dickensian aspect?"......"Exactly!" - The Wire

Ian Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:40:45 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
>> "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it
>>> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
>> So don't watch it. It really is that simple.
>
> He does have a point though, they have lost a lot of momentum by not
> continuing after the writers strike.
>
I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a
short 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly
related to the main arc.

NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
the momentum.

--
JWH

"jewahe" <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1_SdnbMR3rdvoOjVnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:40:45 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
>>> "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it
>>>> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
>>> So don't watch it. It really is that simple.
>>
>> He does have a point though, they have lost a lot of momentum by not
>> continuing after the writers strike.
>>
> I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
> disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a short
> 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly related to
> the main arc.
>
> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
> for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
> the momentum.


Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.

Besides, 24 cancelled its season altogether and just put it off for an extra
year. The last new episode of 24 was in May 2007, and the next new one
won't air until January 2009.

Momentum lost? Only until the next new episode airs...

On 2008-07-09 22:16:31 +0100, "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> said:

> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it would
> take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.

Are you a mayfly by any chance?

On Jul 9, 6:38 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
> disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a
> short 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly
> related to the main arc.

They needed Origins.

> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
> for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
> the momentum.

Sopranos would go twice as long without anything. If Volume 3
improves, they have nothing to worry about, otherwise....

On Jul 10, 6:38 am, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:40:45 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> <IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDin...@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
> >>  "Locutus" <locutus_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I don't even remember what is going on...  it is ridiculous that it
> >>> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
> >> So don't watch it.  It really is that simple.
>
> > He does have a point though, they have lost a lot of momentum by not
> > continuing after the writers strike.
>
> I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
> disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a
> short 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly
> related to the main arc.
>
> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
> for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
> the momentum.

Here's an idea. They were planning to do a six episode "Origins"
series. When the writers strike was over, what was the excuse for not
doing it? They could have even used the existing "1977" they had been
working on when the strike began.

Martin

remysun wrote:
> On Jul 9, 6:38 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
>> disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a
>> short 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly
>> related to the main arc.
>
> They needed Origins.
>
>> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
>> for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
>> the momentum.
>
> Sopranos would go twice as long without anything. If Volume 3
> improves, they have nothing to worry about, otherwise....

The Sopranos did not use serialized plots.

--
JWH

In article <Tobdk.17593$3q7.17235@newsfe15.lga>, jpmccord@hotmail.com
says...
> "jewahe" <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1_SdnbMR3rdvoOjVnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> > Ian Galbraith wrote:
> >> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:40:45 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> <IKidnQ1kJpQyt-jVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>,
> >>> "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it
> >>>> would take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
> >>> So don't watch it. It really is that simple.
> >>
> >> He does have a point though, they have lost a lot of momentum by not
> >> continuing after the writers strike.
> >>
> > I agree - a lot of momentum has been lost, especially after the fairly
> > disastrous "Generations" arc. I think they really should have done a short
> > 3-5 episode arc in April and May, even if it was not directly related to
> > the main arc.
> >
> > NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the stops
> > for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and reestablish
> > the momentum.
>
>
> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.

How do you know?

Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in
news:MPG.22e0cc1ec016e5d598c101@news.usenetserver. com:

>> > NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the
>> > stops for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and
>> > reestablish the momentum.
>>
>>
>> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.
>
> How do you know?
>

How do you know it doesn't? This newsgroup is pretty much overwhelmed with
inane chatter (based on how often it tells me there are a lot of posts and
I see a couple) but the forums, particularly 9thwonder seem to be pretty
active.

M. Halbrook wrote:
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22e0cc1ec016e5d598c101@news.usenetserver. com:
>
>>>> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the
>>>> stops for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and
>>>> reestablish the momentum.
>>>
>>> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.
>> How do you know?
>>
>
> How do you know it doesn't? This newsgroup is pretty much overwhelmed with
> inane chatter (based on how often it tells me there are a lot of posts and
> I see a couple) but the forums, particularly 9thwonder seem to be pretty
> active.

If by "pretty active", you mean that there have been less than 100
on-topic posts in the last month, then yes, they are pretty active.

The most active board I've seen is the official NBC one, and it's mostly
just fanboys and girls posting fluffy "I'm so exciting" and "Heroes is
kewl, man" messages (mostly without the correct punctuation or spelling).

--
JWH

jewahe wrote:
> M. Halbrook wrote:
>> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22e0cc1ec016e5d598c101@news.usenetserver. com:
>>
>>>>> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the
>>>>> stops for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and
>>>>> reestablish the momentum.
>>>> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>> How do you know it doesn't? This newsgroup is pretty much overwhelmed with
>> inane chatter (based on how often it tells me there are a lot of posts and
>> I see a couple) but the forums, particularly 9thwonder seem to be pretty
>> active.
>
> If by "pretty active", you mean that there have been less than 100
> on-topic posts in the last month, then yes, they are pretty active.
>
> The most active board I've seen is the official NBC one, and it's mostly
> just fanboys and girls posting fluffy "I'm so exciting" and "Heroes is
> kewl, man" messages (mostly without the correct punctuation or spelling).

But.... that IS how you spell kewl....

"Andrew" <thecroft@macunlimited.net> wrote in message
news:2008071000013150073-thecroft@macunlimitednet...
> On 2008-07-09 22:16:31 +0100, "Locutus" <locutus_atai@hotmail.com> said:
>
>> I don't even remember what is going on... it is ridiculous that it would
>> take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.
>
> Are you a mayfly by any chance?
>
He's a borg.

"jewahe" <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZfCdnTHRGbBXVOvVnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> M. Halbrook wrote:
>> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.22e0cc1ec016e5d598c101@news.usenetserver. com:
>>>>> NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the
>>>>> stops for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and
>>>>> reestablish the momentum.
>>>>
>>>> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>
>> How do you know it doesn't? This newsgroup is pretty much overwhelmed
>> with inane chatter (based on how often it tells me there are a lot of
>> posts and I see a couple) but the forums, particularly 9thwonder seem to
>> be pretty active.
>
> If by "pretty active", you mean that there have been less than 100
> on-topic posts in the last month, then yes, they are pretty active.
>
> The most active board I've seen is the official NBC one, and it's mostly
> just fanboys and girls posting fluffy "I'm so exciting" and "Heroes is
> kewl, man" messages (mostly without the correct punctuation or spelling).

I hate to break the news to you, but those "fanboys and girls" *are* part of
the heroes following. What's more, by being on this newsgroup, you should
actually be counting yourself as one of them.

And yes, I do count myself as one of them, although I'm hardly a girl
anymore.

Dragonlady wrote:

> I hate to break the news to you, but those "fanboys and girls" *are*
> part of the heroes following.

Did I say otherwise? "Fanboy" is a disparaging term for a specific type
of poster: one who has nothing worthwhile to say, except glowing, empty
praise. The worst possible complaint they would ever have is that the
show is only on once a week.

Fanboys are usually easily distracted by shiny objects and squeak toys,
so they are not exactly the kind of following you really want to have
(although I'm sure that NBC would count dogs, cats, fish, and birds as
viewers, if they could find a way to do so).

> What's more, by being on this newsgroup,
> you should actually be counting yourself as one of them.

I go there to get news and information, not to post on the forum.

--
JWH

jewahe <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in news:zI6dnbY2y-
us3uXVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>> I hate to break the news to you, but those "fanboys and girls" *are*
>> part of the heroes following.
>
> Did I say otherwise? "Fanboy" is a disparaging term for a specific type
> of poster: one who has nothing worthwhile to say, except glowing, empty
> praise. The worst possible complaint they would ever have is that the
> show is only on once a week.

And what do we call their reverse, who's only contribution to discussion is
to say the show sucks and should be canceled? Heroes is far from the only
show affected like this by the strike, and despite the claims that maybe
they should have done a 3 episode arc in the late spring, if they had done
that the people complaining that they didn't would probably be complaining
that they did. Better a long delay than putting out something that would
do jsut as much if not more harm.

In article <g59b3q$dur$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Dragonlady" <dragonladynospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> And yes, I do count myself as one of them, although I'm hardly a girl
> anymore.

It's a state of mind, not a matter of age.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

In article <zI6dnbY2y-us3uXVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
jewahe <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote:

> Fanboys are usually easily distracted by shiny objects and squeak
> toys,

You mean like the Apple fanboy in this video:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgAFkgK7cYE>
He doesn't appear until about 1:17 into it, though.

--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.

In article <Xns9AD7C6CD4C88Amdhalbrookyahoocom@140.99.99.130>,
mdhalbrook@yahoo.com says...
> Pete B <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.22e0cc1ec016e5d598c101@news.usenetserver. com:
>
> >> > NBC and Kring and Co are really going to have to pull out all the
> >> > stops for the series in the Fall in order to pull back viewers and
> >> > reestablish the momentum.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you guys serious? Heroes has a HUGE following.
> >
> > How do you know?
> >
>
> How do you know it doesn't?

No - he makes a postulate without proof. So I'm asking him to show his
proof.

On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, "Locutus" <locutus_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't even remember what is going on...  it is ridiculous that it would
> take so long to bring this series back. NBC is a joke.

I would much rather they take their time and give us some thing on par
with the first 10 eps of season 1. So for me...the jury is still out.

I gotta say that regardless of the quality of what they deliver in
S3...They have lost a LOT of momentum and fanbase. S1 ratings will
not return with the first episode of S3.

On Jul 10, 1:10 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:

> The Sopranos did not use serialized plots.

They were very serialized. A particular episode could stand alone, but
the series was defined by huge archplots that spanned the entire
series.

remysun wrote:
> On Jul 10, 1:10 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The Sopranos did not use serialized plots.
>
> They were very serialized. A particular episode could stand alone, but
> the series was defined by huge archplots that spanned the entire
> series.

That's not the definition of a serialized show. In Heroes, almost every
episode is dependent upon the last one. It's rare that a single episode
can stand alone.

--
JWH

On Jul 13, 2:06 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:
> remysun wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 1:10 pm, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> The Sopranos did not use serialized plots.
>
> > They were very serialized. A particular episode could stand alone, but
> > the series was defined by huge archplots that spanned the entire
> > series.
>
> That's not the definition of a serialized show.

Yes, it is. "Serialized" is synonymous with "episodic".

> In Heroes, almost every
> episode is dependent upon the last one. It's rare that a single episode
> can stand alone.

I never saw the Sopranos: it was never shown on HBO Asia and I didn't
download it. That being said, did it have recurring characters? Did
the characters remember what happened to them from episode to
episode? Did their actions have consequences? The alternative to
serialized or episodic television would be an anthology type show like
the Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. Almost every single drama is
serialized nowadays, with recurring characters and arcing
storylines.

I think the expression you are looking for is "continuity dependent":
we say that some serialized dramas are highly continuity dependent
(meaning that people will be completely lost if they started watching
midseason) and some aren't (meaning that you could watch an episode
from season one and an episode from season seven back to back and the
only difference is that the characters have aged). Law and Order is
pretty much the least continuity driven show on TV today (probably
because it started back when continuity driven dramas weren't the
norm) whereas Lost is probably the most continuity driven shows still
on the air. Everything else fits somewhere in between IMO.

Martin

jewahe <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in
news:SIKdnaidgqvKBuTVnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@comcast.com:

>>> The Sopranos did not use serialized plots.
>>
>> They were very serialized. A particular episode could stand alone, but
>> the series was defined by huge archplots that spanned the entire
>> series.
>
> That's not the definition of a serialized show. In Heroes, almost every
> episode is dependent upon the last one. It's rare that a single episode
> can stand alone.

Babylon 5 was serialized and bounced all over in syndication and survived 5
years.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:40:32 GMT, M. Halbrook wrote:

> jewahe <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in news:zI6dnbY2y-
> us3uXVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com:
[snip]

>> Did I say otherwise? "Fanboy" is a disparaging term for a specific type
>> of poster: one who has nothing worthwhile to say, except glowing, empty
>> praise. The worst possible complaint they would ever have is that the
>> show is only on once a week.
>
> And what do we call their reverse, who's only contribution to discussion is
> to say the show sucks and should be canceled?

I don't see jewahe saying that.

> Heroes is far from the only
> show affected like this by the strike, and despite the claims that maybe
> they should have done a 3 episode arc in the late spring, if they had done
> that the people complaining that they didn't would probably be complaining
> that they did. Better a long delay than putting out something that would
> do jsut as much if not more harm.

They did originally have plans for a longer S2. All wer're saying that in
our minds Heroes has lost a bit of impetus by having such a long break,
and is at risk of having viewers falling off.

--
"The Dickensian aspect?"......"Exactly!" - The Wire

On Jul 13, 2:06 am, jewahe <j.han...@comcast.net> wrote:

> That's not the definition of a serialized show. In Heroes, almost every
> episode is dependent upon the last one. It's rare that a single episode
> can stand alone.

And how's that NOT like The Sopranos? Keeping track of Christopher's
drug problem, who's alive and who got bumped off, whether or not
Carmella has Tony in the doghouse, the flirting with Furio, the
troubles with Phil-- a particular episode might have a contained plot,
but even then there are clues that tie it into a greater timeline. It
pretty much has to be seen from the beginning to be truly understood.

"jewahe" <j.hanvey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zI6dnbY2y-us3uXVnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Dragonlady wrote:
>
>> I hate to break the news to you, but those "fanboys and girls" *are* part
>> of the heroes following.
>
> Did I say otherwise? "Fanboy" is a disparaging term for a specific type of
> poster: one who has nothing worthwhile to say, except glowing, empty
> praise. The worst possible complaint they would ever have is that the show
> is only on once a week.
>
> Fanboys are usually easily distracted by shiny objects and squeak toys, so
> they are not exactly the kind of following you really want to have
> (although I'm sure that NBC would count dogs, cats, fish, and birds as
> viewers, if they could find a way to do so).

I don't think NBC cares who is watching, just how many.

>
>> What's more, by being on this newsgroup, you should actually be counting
>> yourself as one of them.
>
> I go there to get news and information, not to post on the forum.

I assume you're not talking about this forum.

In article <g5h02u$bnr$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"Dragonlady" <dragonladynospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> I don't think NBC cares who is watching, just how many.

Oh, but they do. Demographics is a big thing; they want people who have
money to spend on the products in the commercials.

--
Donate to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; help send Michelle to the marathon.
<http://www.active.com/donate/tntdms/tntdmsMSteine>

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-EC641A.21074514072008@news.east.cox.net...
> In article <g5h02u$bnr$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Dragonlady" <dragonladynospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think NBC cares who is watching, just how many.
>
> Oh, but they do. Demographics is a big thing; they want people who have
> money to spend on the products in the commercials.

Yes, but that's the only reason they keep track of who is watching. Ratings
are still the big thing, because the higher the ratings, the more they can
charge the people who want to advertise. The same advertisements hardly
anybody watches these days between TIVO and other methods of recording and
skipping commercials.

On Jul 16, 9:36 am, "Dragonlady" <dragonladynos...@cableone.net>
wrote:
> "Michelle Steiner" <miche...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>
> news:michelle-EC641A.21074514072008@news.east.cox.net...
>
> > In article <g5h02u$bn...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > "Dragonlady" <dragonladynos...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think NBC cares who is watching, just how many.
>
> > Oh, but they do.  Demographics is a big thing; they want people who have
> > money to spend on the products in the commercials.
>
> Yes, but that's the only reason they keep track of who is watching.  Ratings
> are still the big thing, because the higher the ratings, the more they can
> charge the people who want to advertise.  The same advertisements hardly
> anybody watches these days between TIVO and other methods of recording and
> skipping commercials.

Ah but if you put Megan Fox in a bikini for your ad it'll get 10,000
hits a week on youtube. :)

Martin