I wonder if it says anything about Supergirl that they put reruns of Big Bang in her slot instead of reruns of Supergirl.
Spoilers Supergirl - Season 1
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Yes--it says that CBS is interested in a guaranteed hit for the ratings (first run or not), instead of trying to build on any momentum from the bigger-than-big, well advertised Flash crossover that ended in finally reaching one of major plots of the series in kicking the doors open to the Kara/James romance, not to mention the beginning of the Cadmus mystery from the week before. The crossover was--perhaps the most significant episode yet, so unless there's a ratings reason for skipping weeks, they would lose the momentum built over the last week. And remember, this is a struggling series that--aside from a slight bump from the crossover--has suffered a ratings slide since episode 2.
So, your wondering is timely, and is there any confirmation on the series earning renewal, because Les Moonves only suggests that all of the freshmen series are "likely" to be renewed sans a firm confirmation.
I'm wondering how the licensing works.
Does NBC have to hand over some money to DC Comics every time they screen a rerun of Suupergirl?
I doubt it's very much, but I'm guessing owning the Big Bang Theory outright makes it less complicated to rerun.
Does NBC have to hand over some money to DC Comics every time they screen a rerun of Suupergirl?
I doubt it's very much, but I'm guessing owning the Big Bang Theory outright makes it less complicated to rerun.
Nine months is the normal season length, with the summer months being the break. That's been the standard since the 1950s. Originally, TV seasons tended to be 30-odd episodes per year, long enough to fill the entire gap, but producing that many episodes was a strain, and eventually they started reducing the number of episodes per season (down to a standard of 26 episodes per season by the '70s and 22 per season by the '90s) while maintaining the standard 9-month season length. So having multiple gaps within a season has been normal practice for network and syndicated seasons since the late '80s and early '90s (I first noticed it when Star Trek: The Next Generation was in first run and I kept my own running episode guide on pencil and paper).
Maybe it says that they're trying to promote The Big Bang Theory by putting it in a place where the Supergirl audience might watch it. After all, TBBT makes constant references to comics and geek culture (though genre fans seem divided on whether it represents them well or caricatures them insultingly), and since it's a Warner Bros. show, those are mostly DC references (they do talk about Marvel, but don't get to show the actual comics and T-shirts and the like, as they can with DC properties). So CBS probably thinks the two shows are a good pairing, although I'm not sure many Supergirl fans would agree.
Honestly, I think these weird breaks really hurt the show because they kill the momentum and interest that epic episodes are able to build up. Which is one reason why the netflix model is so appealing because viewers can watch the episodes back to back. If you have a show that catches people's attention then they are able to keep watching it rather than having to wait for the next episode where their interest might die down. That is how I became a fan of the flash. I watched the pilot on netflix. And the pilot was interesting enough that I wanted to watch the next episode which raised my interest further that I wanted to watch the next episode, and the next and the next. I ended up binge watching all of season 1 in a just a couple days. It was an absolute thrill. My experience with season 2 has been quite different. I watch an episode, my interest is peaked but then it dies down because the next episode is a week or sometimes 2 or 3 weeks away.
But BBT is already one of the biggest shows on TV, and Supergirl...isn't. Seems like they'd want to be promoting SG to the BBT crowd, not vice versa. As far as BBT is concerned, most people watching SG have probably been there, done that, signed a nondisclosure agreement with Sheldon.
Except these breaks have been standard TV practice for a quarter-century, so I'm puzzled to hear people talking about them as some "weird" novelty. Sure, as serialization has become more common, it's led to complaints that the breaks are disruptive to ongoing story arcs, but there's nothing new about that either. TV producers have been trying to cope with that conflict for the past decade or so, which is why so many shows today structure their seasons in two half-arcs with a "midseason finale" just before the winter break, which is the longest gap in the season. Many shows have tried to structure their seasons to run in two unbroken blocks, which may be why those shows that still follow the once-standard schedule with multiple breaks seem "weird." And, as you say, binge-watching has resulted in even less tolerance for mid-arc breaks.
Speak for yourself. I've never watched TBBT, and I'm aware of a number of SF/comics fans who consider its geek stereotypes antediluvian and insulting.
And if it's such a big show, doesn't that answer your question about why they'd show its reruns instead of SG's? That's not a sign that SG is failing, just a sign that TBBT is big. Just because a show isn't in the #1 spot, that doesn't mean it's about to be cancelled. A network needs more than one show.
Well, I am aware that breaks have been common TV practice for a long time but it feels like the breaks are more random now than they used to be. I am used to having summer breaks and mid season breaks but it seems like now we are getting small breaks spread out throughout the season. I could be wrong though. Maybe it is just that as we have become less tolerant of breaks, it makes us notice them more. But the breaks just feel more annoying than they used to be.
CBS may be hoping that those seeking past Supergirl episodes will find their way to CBS All Access-- the paid app which they've been pushing hard. They may be operating under the assumption that holding back the reruns will drive more people to the subscription service.
Back when the Star Trek sequels were on in the '80s and '90s, it was standard to have one big break in the winter and then a few intermittent smaller breaks in the spring. For instance, just to pick one season out of my old lists, TNG season 7 ran for 11 straight weeks from September to early December, then took 5 weeks off, then had 2 new episodes, then one week off, then 5 weeks on, then 2 weeks off, then 2 weeks on, then 3 weeks off, then 5 weeks on to finish the season. That was pretty routine for TV in general in the '90s, although I suppose it's become less common in today's more serialized era.
Reruns are also available via On Demand cable and at CBS's website. There are so many ways to rewatch an episode that there isn't as much need for on-air reruns anymore.
In the old days, it helped that the programming that interrupted weekly series seemed more... special. Most of the sports broadcasts like the NBA and baseball playoffs, were rotated between the networks each year, and the networks not carrying them that year would counter program with movies, mini series, and specials to draw the many millions not interested. And the number of in season repeats was kept to a minimum if at all-usually the network would secure rights to 2 or 3 reruns from the show's previous season that didn't get shown during the summer, to fill in the gaps. With only 3 networks and PBS, nobody found this as annoying as it is today.
Yeah, and back then, TV was episodic, so there were no building arcs to interrupt. But by the '80s and '90s, not only was TV getting relatively more continuity-driven, but season lengths were dropping and reruns in-season were becoming more common.
I read an article once asserting that, in a sense, Star Trek was to blame for all this. In the '60s, networks assumed that adult viewers had little tolerance for reruns (kids never seemed to mind as much), so they tried to avoid showing reruns more than they had to. But once ST:TOS went into syndication with a smaller-than-usual number of episodes (only 79 when the presumed minimum for viability was 100), they found that people were willing to watch the same episodes over and over and over, and so they realized that they could get away with making fewer episodes per season and showing more reruns, and people would still watch. So the number of episodes dropped from upper 20s/low 30s in the '60s to 26 in the '70s and '80s to 22 in the '90s and '00s. At least, that's what the article claimed. I'm not sure the timing really works out there, since most shows were down to 26 or so episodes by the time TOS was in first run, and the drop to 22 didn't happen for another couple of decades. (As it happens, the Trek shows were pretty much the last shows to stick with 26-episode seasons when everyone else had dropped to 22 as the standard.)
In 1970, the FCC blocked the networks from owning (or having an ownship stake in) the programming that they aired in primetime, and also forced them out of operating syndication divisions. That's more likely the reason for the shrinking episode orders. They could no longer profit from the selling of reruns so they didn't need/want the previous standard of 36-32-30, then 28, down to 26 episodes per season (in the early 70s). 
Last edited:
In 1970, the FCC blocked the networks from owning (or having an ownship stake in) the programming that they aired in primetime, and also forced them out of operating syndication divisions. That's more likely the reason for the shrinking episode orders. They could no longer profit from the selling of reruns so they didn't need/want the previous standard of 36-32-30, then 28, down to 26 episodes per season (in the early 70s).
Good to know. But I'm sure that part of it was that it made for easier production schedules. I've heard about early shows having trouble keeping up the pace to churn out episodes for most of the year. The reason Maverick started alternating between two lead characters was because they couldn't meet their shooting schedule with just one lead actor and one production team, so they had two teams shooting two leads simultaneously in order to meet the demand. Given that, it makes sense that having fewer episodes per season would be a benefit to the producers of a show.
Something similar, but not quite the same, happened with Doctor Who in its early years. Originally its episodes were shot "as live" -- they'd spend four days rehearsing a script and preparing the production, then record it Friday evening in one long session with only a few recording breaks permitted and little time for retakes. And they made enough episodes to stay on the air practically year-round, with maybe about a 6-week vacation between production blocks. And it was such a strain on the actors to keep working week after week that they actually had to start writing stories in such a way that gave them a week or two off in the middle of a serial -- for instance, one of the characters would be imprisoned or unconscious or just off on their own side quest for one episode, and would only appear in prefilmed inserts or just not be there. Eventually, Patrick Troughton complained about the production schedule, and it led to the decision (at the start of the Pertwee era in 1970) to switch from "as live" to a more modern approach (shooting out of order so you could do all the scenes on one set together and save time), and also to reduce the number of episodes per season so the show was only on for half the year. And the BBC didn't even show reruns -- they'd just run a different series in the hiatus.
Remember "summer replacement series"?
For instance, Carol Burnett would take the summer off, and the Sonny and Cher show would run in her spot. The summer show would be fewer episodes on a tryout basis, and if it hit, it would get a full season and its own time slot.
On episode quantity examples - Hogan's Heroes season 2 was 32 episodes!
Gilligan's Island s1 was 36 eps! Hell, Gilligan only ran 3 seasons, but there were 98 episodes!
22 in a modern season doesn't seem enough to me by a long shot. Not to mention cable shows like Black Sails giving us only 10.
For instance, Carol Burnett would take the summer off, and the Sonny and Cher show would run in her spot. The summer show would be fewer episodes on a tryout basis, and if it hit, it would get a full season and its own time slot.
On episode quantity examples - Hogan's Heroes season 2 was 32 episodes!
Gilligan's Island s1 was 36 eps! Hell, Gilligan only ran 3 seasons, but there were 98 episodes!
22 in a modern season doesn't seem enough to me by a long shot. Not to mention cable shows like Black Sails giving us only 10.
I didn't watch the Big Bang reruns, but I'm guessing there were more than a few Supergirl commercials in there (as well as those annoying banner ads that run on the bottom of the screen), which I'm sure CBS hoped might encourage people to check out next week's new episode.
As for the episode gaps, I imagine that's probably because of how effects-heavy the show is to make, and they need the extra time to finish putting episodes together. Very often episodes for expensive genre shows only get finished at the last minute before airing (and we do see a lot of the same gaps for Flash and Legends as well).
As for the episode gaps, I imagine that's probably because of how effects-heavy the show is to make, and they need the extra time to finish putting episodes together. Very often episodes for expensive genre shows only get finished at the last minute before airing (and we do see a lot of the same gaps for Flash and Legends as well).
I understand hiatuses, e.g., Agents of SHIELD and other shows taking a break during the holidays season. Nowadays it seems the networks hardly ever do reruns anymore; they take a two- or three-week break between episodes and replace the slot with some other programming.
Why would NBC care about Supergirl when it's shown on CBS?
I don't want to get into the big debate here, but I've been a huge fan of TBBT since the pilot first aired and I've never seen what the problems with it are. It does make jokes about nerds, but I've never seen where it's any worse than The Office making jokes about crazy bosses and people who work in offices or Modern Family making jokes about families.
I don't think the breaks are really any different than they used to be, I think it's more about the way the shows have changed. It's not as bad when it's a more episodic show, like an NCIS or Castle, but it is annoying with seralized show since it's interupting the flow of the arc.
I have trouble keeping up with all of the shows I watch, so I appreciate the breaks since they give me a chance to get caught up. But it is annoying when I am caught up with a show. Several times I've hurried to get caught up while a show was on break, only to have them show one episode and then go on another break.
I actually don't mind the shorter seasons for the more heavily serialized show. By showing less episodes they don't have to stretch the story out, and can focus on really moving things forward significantly with each episode.
Agreed; the Flash crossover was not a mid-season finale at all, so there's no logic in breaking the series' lone point of momentum since its debut. In its history, Supergirl has skipped (collective) several weeks, with TBBT not an uncommon replacement. The unavoidable issue is what was noted earlier: the Flash crossover was supposed to be THE big event of the season, and it managed to get a small ratings bump when the series had consistently been on a ratings downslide since episode 2. No matter what will happen for the reminder of the series arcs (Kara & James / Cadmus / Kryptonian villains, etc.), the crossover was designed to be so-called "must see TV" and give the faithful--and (through promotion) possibly new viewers a reason to stick with the series.
TBBT inserted is just a reminder that this "geek" show still has more mainstream appeal than a character bearing the "S" shield--one of the most famous global brands in popular culture history, yet, even as a point of curiosity with brand familiarity, its not growing like other genre series.
I think it is clear the success of TBBT--with its "geek'/comic book culture one of its hallmarks--is the reason CBS continues to use it as a replacement for Supergirl--they are trying to get TBBT's audience interested in the other series which occupies that time slot--one that should naturally appeal to those who watch TBBT.
This is not a new concept in series promotion; for example, in the 1960's, networks would use spots starring their series' biggest stars to promote another series (usually freshman), or an entire line-up (ABC did that with That Girl's Marlo Thomas, Adam West as Batman, Bewitched's Elizabeth Montgomery, et al.). All part of the business of using popular stars and/or series to coax the uninitiated into watching the struggling freshman series. It appears to be no coincidence that TBBT is being used in the same way with Supergirl.
That was definitely a factor for the Star Trek shows back in the '80s-'90s. It took so long to make each episode, what with all the elaborate effects and such, that even with a headstart of months before the season premiere, they'd still fall behind schedule and need to space out the episode releases to catch up.