The Event Season 1.5 *Spoilers*

[bigdaddy]

I know there aren't a lot of fans of the show on here, but I saw the promos for the show's return March 8th.

What I found interesting is that in the promo (Which I'm having issues finding online) the announcer went something like...

"They aren't invading, they are taking back their home".

Which makes it seem the popular theories of the aliens being from a AU or from the future are probably correct.

I'm hoping that they are from the future, but had to leave Earth, were traveling in time crashed in the wrong year on Earth. Then the satellite from the fall finale was to call the future humans back to Earth now.

They are also getting rid of the flashbacks. That is way too little, way too late. The problem wasn't the flashbacks itself, they just jumped around randomly and really didn't add anything to the story, all they did was to delay answers. The show started with 13 million viewers and now has less than 6 million, most people probably think it's canceled. If they didn't have flashbacks, or if they were done better from the beginning than maybe more than half the viewers would have stuck around.

[Starbreaker]

Well, I suffered through the first 10 episodes, so I might as well try and enjoy the rest. I'm at least interested in a couple of the ongoing plots. The flashbacks were completely unnecessary and I'm guessing they took this long hiatus to retool some of the footage they had already filmed. I'm hoping they don't end the show on a cliffhanger, too.

[DeadmeatDiggory]

Isn't this show canned yet?

[Locutus of Bored]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

What I found interesting is that in the promo (Which I'm having issues finding online) the announcer went something like...

"They aren't invading, they are taking back their home".

Which makes it seem the popular theories of the aliens being from a AU or from the future are probably correct.

I'm thinking they're more like the first evolution of human life on Earth, who went out and colonized a planet in another star system, but are now returning back home after some kind of disaster.

[bigdaddy]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

I'm thinking they're more like the first evolution of human life on Earth, who went out and colonized a planet in another star system, but are now returning back home after some kind of disaster.

Yeah that works to.

I'll have to find the article but a website has seen the next two episodes and the guy went "And what's the point of the show now" after seeing them. He also commented on how the explaination on the show made no sense in regards to the promos.

I hope they realize this is a one season show, or at least have a back up plan. Then can do it like Farscape did, have the last episode end well, besides the last 30 seconds. Just cut off the cliff hanger and say it's a full show.

Link - http://cliqueclack.com/tv/2011/03/01/the-event-ngc-253/

[propita]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

I hope they realize this is a one season show, or at least have a back up plan.

On that note, if costs could be kept down, would it really be wrong to have one-season shows? Packets of plot, convolutions, characterization, reconciliation, and resolution?

I would think that some actors might like the idea, since they’d be assured of some money, but not tied down to a multi-year contract. And the studios wouldn’t have demands for pay raises, since it’s only a year. Heck, they could use it as extended mini-series’, where there could be further stories in a regular series...or not.

Anyone else like the idea?

[Icemizer]

No studio would ever back the idea of a one year show. If its super hot you want to milk it for as many seasons as you can. As long as people are watching in droves the ad money keeps pouring in and that makes the studios and me happy.

[FreezeC77]

propita wrote:

---

On that note, if costs could be kept down, would it really be wrong to have one-season shows? Packets of plot, convolutions, characterization, reconciliation, and resolution?

I would think that some actors might like the idea, since they’d be assured of some money, but not tied down to a multi-year contract. And the studios wouldn’t have demands for pay raises, since it’s only a year. Heck, they could use it as extended mini-series’, where there could be further stories in a regular series...or not.

Anyone else like the idea?

Of course *I* like the idea, but I probably watch more foreign shows than I do US shows nowadays and many other countries have a lot of 'one-season' shows. Japan and Korea both tend to have dramas that are short-run and more akin to a long mini-series.

The upside is if the show is liked it tends to bring in better ratings than popular shows in the US because it's like someone leaving a movie 20 minutes into it. Major events tend to happen more frequently since you're talking about a Japanese series that may have a 12 episode season or a Korean show which may have a 16 episode run (sometimes extended longer).

Both countries do have shows that run longer, or come back for multiple seasons, but it's still very different form how US television is.

[Temis the Vorta]

On that note, if costs could be kept down, would it really be wrong to have one-season shows?

That conflicts with the way TV works. It's a hit-driven business, where most shows are failures and the few hits pay for all the failures. So every show you attempt must have the goal of being a hit that will last twelve seasons and generate spinoff series.

You can't afford not to do this, especially now that hits are harder to generate, especially on broadcast TV. ABC and NBC are having whole seasons with no hits at all. That's the real problem for TV - how to make any of their shows hits. The last thing on their minds is handicapping themselves deliberately, they're quite good enough at doing it without trying. It would be like drilling holes in the hull of the Titanic.

Alternatively, let's say ABC or NBC loses their mind and decides to deliberately create a one-year show. There are three possibilities: it has bad ratings and is cancelled immediately; it has ratings good enough for one year and one year only; or it has ratings good enough to continue for another season. In the first two examples, it would be gone after a year regardless of intent. In the last, it would be continued into a second year, and another after that, for as long as the ratings merit, because why not make money if you can? Especially if nothing else is making money.

So even an "intended" one year series would be no different than any other.

[Harvey]

One season shows wouldn't work because studios need home video and syndication sales in order to make programming profitable, and one season shows don't get good syndication deals (if any) nor sell like gangbusters on home video (with rare exception). Dramatic television costs more to make per episode than it earns per episode from initial network broadcasts, so these ancillary revenue streams are key to profitability (there is also the internet now, but it's still a small source of income for the studios).

Short contracts with actors wouldn't work, either, because what happens if your show is a hit? Now the studio wants the actor back for a second season, but the actor is in a better negotiating position. The result is that the actor will probably earn more money than they would have been paid if the studio had just signed them to a regular, multi-season contract in the first place.

[bigdaddy]

You can sign actors for a year, but have a several year contract with them. Look at Weir on Stargate Atlantis, she had it in your contract work for 6 years and they fired her after three. You can do the same with other shows.

I think more shows need to have a conclusion that ends one storyline, but has a mini cliffhanger that makes you want more. That way if the show fails you have a conclusion, if not oh well there is at least a decent ending.

Anyways no matter what The Event will never have a decent ending, it was never decent.

[Harvey]

Right, but that's a multi-year contract where the actor's yearly raises have been pre-negotiated and the actors are contractually obligated to appear on the series for as long as it is on the air or until their contract runs out, whichever comes first.

propita was suggesting that actors could be convinced to do television without the possibility of having to fulfill a multi-year contract. But that wouldn't work, for the reasons stated previously.

Actors like Higginson could of course be released from their contract at any time, but that's not the issue.

[Enterprise is Great]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

I know there aren't a lot of fans of the show on here, but I saw the promos for the show's return March 8th.

What I found interesting is that in the promo (Which I'm having issues finding online) the announcer went something like...

"They aren't invading, they are taking back their home".

Which makes it seem the popular theories of the aliens being from a AU or from the future are probably correct.

I'm hoping that they are from the future, but had to leave Earth, were traveling in time crashed in the wrong year on Earth. Then the satellite from the fall finale was to call the future humans back to Earth now.

The ads make them seem like the Ancients from Stargate. One ad I saw implied that Sophia's people...or their ancestors... made the pyramids and other ancient artifacts.

[Tom]

Anyone watch this last night? I thought the back to back episodes were pretty good.

[Nowhere Man]

I saw the new episode last night. I thought it was pretty good. The Aliens are from NGC253, which is a galaxy near ours, so not AU humans.