HRHTheKING;1536423 Much of UPN's success came from WWE from 1999 onwards. [/quote said:
The CW is a gasping dying network-SO THERE!
- Thread starter Mutara Nebula 1967
- Start date
The WB was a TV network and WGN is a local TV station in Chicago, and a related but different channel is a cable super-station.
There was never a "WGN version of the WB".
WGN may have run some shows the WB showed, but I suspect they were run after the seasons ended on the network.
Seriously. Let Supernatural get a good five seasons, then the CW can drop off the face of the Earth for all I care.Supernatural airs on the CW where I live....
IT CAN'T GO BELLY UP YET.
Supernatural airs on the CW where I live....
Ummm...
That's because that's the network the show runs on.
Ummm...
The CW network runs some wrestling, but they have no idea when your local CW station runs TOSR, since that's something the local channel does on its own. It has nothing to do with the network's programming schedule.
Also, I don't think the CW normally runs wrestling on weekends, when TOSR usually airs.
If your local CW station is running addtional fight/wrestling shows, they're running those on their own too, and as with TOSR it has nothing to do with the CW network.
WWE is leaving the CW after this broadcast season. Smallville is the only thing that will keep that network alive. The CW is living on borrowed time.
Uh-huh. And what network was the WWE on when UPN imploded less than a year after ENT left the air?It lasted longer with Enterprise than without it!
Much of UPN's success came from WWE from 1999 onwards.
You do realize that ENT's ratings were simply too low for them to attract enough advertisers to pay for such an expensive show, right? That it was actually losing money? (There's a reason that Season Four's commercial breaks started with a preview of what was coming after the breaks -- they were no longer able to get enough advertisers to buy air time during the commercials to fill the breaks!)
Further, you do realize, also, that the CW employs hundreds of people who work very hard to support their families and that if the CW goes down, that's a lot of folks out of work, right?
I'm not saying it's unfair to be upset that UPN -- a different network, I might add -- cancelled ENT. But, y'know, let's be reasonable here. ENT was a failing show, and it's just petty to be happy when other people suffer because of a decision to cancel a show you liked.
Sorry, but not getting enough advertisers doesn't make sense. They may have to lower the ad rates to fill the spots, and ENT ad rates did drop continuously during its run, but networks are not going to run out of advertisers.
UPN didn't lose any money on ENT because it got a bargain license fee during the 4th season (license fee dropped from $1.6 million per episode to around $850k). One of their executives said at the time of the renewal announcement that the low license fee made the renewal decision a no-brainer. The local stations didn't lose money, most of them even aired it a second time on the weekend. Paramount definitely lost money during the original run, but that's normal for a production company. Their loss increased quite a bit during the 4th season due to the lower license fee, but they will (or already have) made that money back via syndication/cable & DVD sales. Increasing the value of the syndication package was the reason they agreed to the low license fee.
But it is correct that ENT's high cost and not having enough viewers were the reasons for its end. From the point of view of the production company the return on investment projections (even if positive) obviously weren't good enough to justify the continuation of the show.
UPN didn't lose any money on ENT because it got a bargain license fee during the 4th season (license fee dropped from $1.6 million per episode to around $850k). One of their executives said at the time of the renewal announcement that the low license fee made the renewal decision a no-brainer. The local stations didn't lose money, most of them even aired it a second time on the weekend. Paramount definitely lost money during the original run, but that's normal for a production company. Their loss increased quite a bit during the 4th season due to the lower license fee, but they will (or already have) made that money back via syndication/cable & DVD sales. Increasing the value of the syndication package was the reason they agreed to the low license fee.
But it is correct that ENT's high cost and not having enough viewers were the reasons for its end. From the point of view of the production company the return on investment projections (even if positive) obviously weren't good enough to justify the continuation of the show.
Last edited:
Uh-huh. And what network was the WWE on when UPN imploded less than a year after ENT left the air?It lasted longer with Enterprise than without it!
Much of UPN's success came from WWE from 1999 onwards.
UPN, then the CW, on Friday nights, the so-called "death slot"
ENT ended in May 2005
It's now April 2008 and the network has survived without ENT for that fairly lengthy period.
And that is the bottom line. It was a very expensive show. Those sets and special effects pushed up way above the cost of reality shows, dramas and comedies. SciFi is not an efficient investment. I'm surprised that the SciFi channel survives. Oh, wrestling is another cheap show with a good return.
Really? Wow. I thought the network that put out Enterprise had to merge with another network because they were about to go under. I had no idea they survived.
They did survive. They merely merged with another network to become the CW.
Enterprise was on UPN. There is no UPN. It did not survive.
It did. It's not called UPN anymore, but the CW is essentially a continuation of both UPN and the WB. Even if one believes that UPN didn't "survive" it doesn't mean that ENT's cancellation was the death blow, nor does it mean that if ENT wasn't cancelled that UPN would have continued.
Similar threads
