Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Entertainment and Media  ›  SD DVD - TV Shows and TV Movies  ›  When Did TV Shows Shrink?
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

When Did TV Shows Shrink?

#31
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 2:50am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
It seems hard to imagine any show will become closer to 50% commercials, but it could happen.
It definitely could happen, if the value to advertisers of the commercials that we currently have continues to plummet.
Export to Wiki
#32
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 3:40am
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Nova Catacumba Exhibition Facility
  • Post Count: 895

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike*SC
A few of the networks are also dividing their shows up into smaller chunks, with the idea that advertisers will prefer shorter (but more frequent) commercial breaks. This makes it nearly impossible to get any story momentum going.

According to this article from USA TODAY, USATODAY.com - Ad glut turns off viewers written nearly four years ago, this is correct. A one-hour Drama used to be divided into four acts, with the Commercials between the acts, then they decided to carve them into six acts, stuffing in MORE Commercials. This article also shows how much more time is being allotted for Commercials, A Chart from 1996 to 2004 shows the average number of commercials increasing from just short of 10 minutes in 1996 to almost 16 minutes in 2004! Needless to say it hasn't gotten any better since!

DVD Collection Inventory: TV Episodes - 14,957. Movies - 1,362. Serial Chapters 437

Export to Wiki
#33
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 9:40am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Houston, TX USA
  • Post Count: 594

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Posted by Bryan^K: people generally aren't entertained by even the most entertaining commercial the third time they sit through it.

With the exception of Jack-in-the-Box's MINI SIRLOIN BURGERS.

Onkyo TX-SR606
Toshiba HD-A2. HD-A3
Panasonic DMP-BD60
Mitsubishi WD-62725 62" DLP

Export to Wiki
#34
Rating: 0
6/5/09 at 12:09pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulus
According to this article from USA TODAY, USATODAY.com - Ad glut turns off viewers written nearly four years ago, this is correct.
Actually, what is really funny about that article is that its content contradicts the assertion in the headline, at least the way most reasonable people interpret the intent of the article.

The hard data presented was:
Quote:
Yet Nielsen Media Research says TV viewership in U.S. homes hit record highs last season.

"There's been a lot of hand-wringing in the business about when viewers are going to say, 'Enough's enough,' but they haven't," says Tim Brooks, a TV historian and research chief at Lifetime. "It may never be that commercials drive people away from the set, but it makes them pay less attention to avoid the irrelevant interruptions."
So viewers were not "turned off" -- they just "tuned out" -- or perhaps more likely, spaced out. Or got a DVR.

There is no question that the value of viewership is affected by more advertising, but the reality is that there is math involved. If you increase X to X + Y, N goes to N - M -- multiplied by P, N - M times X + Y is still bigger than N times X.... y'know? (Seriously, there is a technique called parametric analysis that weighs the impact of things like adding more advertising, its effect on viewership, the consequent effect on ratings, and factors in the effect on rates and therefore revenues and profits -- and can help determine the optimal amount of commercials. The problem, I think, is two-fold: First, I don't think the models have factored in the spacing out effect. Second, once they do, I think that'll radically change the model, but it may not change it in our favor. I think it is as likely as not that fewer commercials will still mean less profit overall, no matter what.)
Export to Wiki
#35
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 6:02am
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Nova Catacumba Exhibition Facility
  • Post Count: 895

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

In the same article a Producer says:

"It makes you long for the day when everything comes out in boxed sets of DVDs so you can enjoy it."

This is the route I have taken!

DVD Collection Inventory: TV Episodes - 14,957. Movies - 1,362. Serial Chapters 437

Export to Wiki
#36
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 10:29am
  • Joined: February 2005
  • Post Count: 1,266

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

What Brian^K says is truly the way it works, because maximizing profit is network television's only concern. So there is an "ideal number of commercials" which will maximize profit.

If they wanted to maximize the audience -- which wouldn't necessarily maximize the profit -- there'd probably be fewer commercials.

If they wanted to maximize goodwill -- which is probably very low on their priorities, if it's even there at all -- there might be two minutes of commercials per half hour.

It wasn't always this way. The president of Firestone for over thirty years paid for "The Voice of Firestone" to be on radio and television because he thought it was a good thing to bring classical music and opera to the masses. It was usually the lowest rated show of the week, and didn't bring anything to Firestone except prestige, if that.
Export to Wiki
#37
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 12:18pm
  • Joined: June 2005
  • Post Count: 238

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
What Brian^K says is truly the way it works, because maximizing profit is network television's only concern. So there is an "ideal number of commercials" which will maximize profit.

If they wanted to maximize the audience -- which wouldn't necessarily maximize the profit -- there'd probably be fewer commercials.
Yes, but it's a tricky equation: The sheer number of commercials drives some viewers away, and as ratings drop, the networks can demand less money for each commercial. In theory, if fewer commercials resulted in higher viewership, the networks could charge more for fewer commercials, make as much money with longer shows, and everybody would win.

The problem is, the few experiments in longer programming (such as the "Fringe" premiere) haven't proved this to be true. I would contend that any one episode of a series is not a valid test, but I also understand that the networks cannot afford a long term test of this theory if it proved to be very harmful to their bottom lines.
Export to Wiki
#38
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 12:30pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

They tried it for 33 episodes, not just one.
Export to Wiki
#39
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 1:28pm
  • Joined: March 2001
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Post Count: 257

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Not only a cut in time, but a nice cut in the number of episodes in a season over the years. I think 39 episodes per season was the norm for a long time. Now it is something like 22 or 24.

Do you remember when Hawaii Five 0 played late night on CBS. I think it was retitled McGarrett. Anyway, it ran in a 70 minute time slot, as I guess they didn't want to cut the episodes.
Export to Wiki
#40
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 1:40pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

39 episodes per season was the norm in the 1960s.

Here are some numbers for you:

All in the Family 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
All in the Family 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
All in the Family 1973-1974 = 23 episodes
Gunsmoke 1970-1971 = 24 episodes
Gunsmoke 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
Gunsmoke 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1970-1971 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1971-1972 = 24 episodes
Hawaii Five-O 1972-1973 = 24 episodes
The Waltons 1972-1973 = 25 episodes
The Waltons 1973-1974 = 25 episodes
The Waltons 1974-1975 = 25 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1974-1975 = 24 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1975-1976 = 22 episodes
Little House on the Prairie 1976-1977 = 22 episodes

So the number of episodes per season has been what it is now, for four decades. It's probably about time to stop mourning that one.
Export to Wiki
#41
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 1:47pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Oh! Some more numbers:

2008-2009
'24' = 24 episodes
Criminal Minds = 26 episodes
House = 24 episodes
NCIS = 25 episodes
Numb3rs = 23 episodes
Export to Wiki
#42
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 2:30pm
  • Joined: January 2005
  • Location: Dallas, TX
  • Post Count: 2,251

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
...If they wanted to maximize goodwill -- which is probably very low on their priorities, if it's even there at all -- there might be two minutes of commercials per half hour.

can't argue with that, Joe. Most likely true in a lot of cases. Your line reminds me of one of my favorite 70's movies, "Charley Varrick" '73 (Walter Matthau, Joe Don Baker, William Schallert).

[scene in the gun shop between the gun dealer & that big Mafia gorilla (Joe Don Baker) ]

[Gun Dealer] " I got all the good will I need. If you want to know what I know, get some cash on the counter!"

[Joe Don Baker..after shoving the wheel-chaired gun dealer back against the wall sitting down on some boxes] "Now sit there and start talking...with good will!"

One of my all-time favorite movies...it's out in R2 with an anamorphic release. The R1's a 1.33:1 release.

"Checkmate King Two Out"   Jeff Willis  "Combat! A Selmur Production"

I'm a 50's - mid-90's TV/DVD Collector. One DVD show since '96: Firefly 

The Fugitive/See Hollywood & Die: [Miles] "What, you think I'm crazy?!" [Kimble] "Next question."

Export to Wiki
#43
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 5:03pm
  • Joined: February 2005
  • Post Count: 1,266

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Well, we laugh now, I guess ... but there was a time when corporations did show some social responsibility, even if it cut into their profits ... or so I've heard.

As for the "ideal number of commercials" to maximize revenue, here's an example.

Having four minutes of commercials in a half-hour might bring in an audience of 20 million, enabling the network to charge $200,000 a minute, for a total of $800,000.

Having eight minutes might decrease the audience all the way down to 10 million -- but let's say the network can charge $120,000 a minute for that, for a total of $960,000 -- so it would be economically irrational not to have the eight minutes, and goodwill and a total larger audience go right out the window.

It's ok with me ... I haven't watched network television since the 1970s.

When I grew up in the '50s, most shows had 39 episodes a year, at 26 minutes for half hours and 52 for hours. I never dreamed things would deteriorate as badly as they did.
Export to Wiki
#44
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 5:18pm
  • Joined: February 2007
  • Post Count: 1,382

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

some of the best tv for the last decade had zero ad breaks since they ran on HBO & Showtime.

come see the reviews at
http://thedvdlounge.com/

and the Seinfeld Tour Bus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztXpmMbj_0

Export to Wiki
#45
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 5:41pm
  • Joined: January 2005
  • Location: Dallas, TX
  • Post Count: 2,251

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Joe,

I grew up mainly in the 60's (b '55) but I remember the tail end of the 50's and the times per episode, Perry Mason, etc. I also am amazed how much the "hr-long" shows have shortened. As I only have 1 TV/DVD set from this century ("Firefly") I remember looking at the DVD player time counter watching that set.....42-43 minutes per episode vs the Perry Mason (early seasons) 52 min's per ep. That's a lot of time removed from the actual shows.

"Checkmate King Two Out"   Jeff Willis  "Combat! A Selmur Production"

I'm a 50's - mid-90's TV/DVD Collector. One DVD show since '96: Firefly 

The Fugitive/See Hollywood & Die: [Miles] "What, you think I'm crazy?!" [Kimble] "Next question."

Export to Wiki
#46
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 5:58pm
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Florida
  • Post Count: 2,066

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Willis
Joe,

I grew up mainly in the 60's (b '55) but I remember the tail end of the 50's and the times per episode, Perry Mason, etc. I also am amazed how much the "hr-long" shows have shortened. As I only have 1 TV/DVD set from this century ("Firefly") I remember looking at the DVD player time counter watching that set.....42-43 minutes per episode vs the Perry Mason (early seasons) 52 min's per ep. That's a lot of time removed from the actual shows.

Jeff, I have to agree with you and Joe on this one. The amount of commercials in an hour long show is ludicrous at this point. On the rare occasions that I've tried to watch a current show (Smallville is the only one that comes to mind) it's always seemed very rushed, plot wise.

Gary "it's not just that I dislike the annoyance of disruption commercials bring, it's the horrible, inappropriate, R-rated ads that are placed within 'clean' shows" O.
"Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth"
                                             ...CHARLIE CHAN ON TREASURE ISLAND

Export to Wiki
#47
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 6:06pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
Well, we laugh now, I guess ... but there was a time when corporations did show some social responsibility, even if it cut into their profits ... or so I've heard.
Do you have a 401(k)? Do you own any stocks? Does your company offer a retirement plan? Did your parents have any investments that they used to put your through college, buy you a car, or save up for their own retirement, so they felt secure enough to pay for your upbringing, your education, etc.

If so, then you're a contributor to what you are complaining about.

Investors drive companies to serve their interests first. Companies that don't do that are punished, viciously and without restraint -- sometimes resulting in legal action against company directors who fail to take advantage of opportunities to enhance shareholder value that shareholders feel would benefit them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
... and goodwill and a total larger audience go right out the window.
"Total larger audience" is no one's objective, nor should it be. "Goodwill" is an illusion. Viewers are utterly disloyal, all by themselves, aside from any claims to the contrary. Just like investors care only about their own financial interests, viewers care only about what programming they like best, what will entertain them the most. They'll even follow their favorite program to a competing network; absolutely no loyalty to the network whatsoever.
Export to Wiki
#48
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 6:08pm
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey3rd
some of the best tv for the last decade had zero ad breaks since they ran on HBO & Showtime.
Which cost about $10 per month, each. That's what it is going to come down to: You want good stuff? Well since your viewership isn't worth anything near what it used to be, now you have to put up cash.
Export to Wiki
#49
Rating: 0
6/6/09 at 8:30pm
  • Joined: February 2007
  • Post Count: 1,382

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Which cost about $10 per month, each. That's what it is going to come down to: You want good stuff? Well since your viewership isn't worth anything near what it used to be, now you have to put up cash.

That's what it comes down to if you have to pay for shows that are willing to push boundaries since the networks now live in mortal fear of that prude in Texas who complains about seeing bellybuttons in primetime. You have the torch and pitch fork crowd led by Focus on the Family eager to attack any show. They're going to remain mild to appease the jerks. Still think it's amazing that CBS was able to clean up Dexter enough for regular broadcast. Although most of those episodes are over 50 minutes.

It's $12.50 in my area to see Up with the 3-D glasses. HBO and Showtime are bargains. Each has 10 different channels on my box. I get more HBO and Showtime than I used to get cable channel total as a kid. Plus if you get the digital OnDemand, you can watch the original programming on your schedule.

You always have to pay extra for the good stuff. That's how life is lived.

come see the reviews at
http://thedvdlounge.com/

and the Seinfeld Tour Bus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DztXpmMbj_0

Export to Wiki
#50
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 2:58am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corey3rd
You always have to pay extra for the good stuff. That's how life is lived.
Truer words have never never spoken.
Export to Wiki
#51
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 5:18am
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Nova Catacumba Exhibition Facility
  • Post Count: 895

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

[quote=Brian^K]
Investors drive companies to serve their interests first. Companies that don't do that are punished, viciously and without restraint -- sometimes resulting in legal action against company directors who fail to take advantage of opportunities to enhance shareholder value that shareholders feel would benefit them.

QUOTE]

I can some this up in TWO WORDS!

CORPERATE GREED!

DVD Collection Inventory: TV Episodes - 14,957. Movies - 1,362. Serial Chapters 437

Export to Wiki
#52
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 6:32am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regulus
I can some this up in TWO WORDS!

CORPERATE GREED!
Cooperative greed? Yes, I suppose you can call millions of American citizens investing in their futures through stocks, and 401(k)s, and other investment instruments, to be " cooperative greed" on our part. Everyone want to have the good life, and a comfortable retirement. I think your calling it "cooperative greed" is a little silly, but that's your prerogative.
Export to Wiki
#53
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 6:55am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Florida
  • Post Count: 2,066

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian^K
Cooperative greed? Yes, I suppose you can call millions of American citizens investing in their futures through stocks, and 401(k)s, and other investment instruments, to be " cooperative greed" on our part. Everyone want to have the good life, and a comfortable retirement. I think your calling it "cooperative greed" is a little silly, but that's your prerogative.

I'm pretty sure he meant corporate greed. And not everyone that watches TV has stock in networks or the advertisers. I honestly think you are only looking at this situation from the "corporate" or network side of things. We have these type of discussions on this forum all the time and the biggest arguments are often because people fail to see both sides of things, and instead only discuss things from one side of the equation. I think there should be room enough for both the practicals (the way it is) and the ideals (the way it should be/the way we'd like it to be). Peace.

Gary "I realize this twisted world we live in revolves around money, money, money - but I don't think Joe should get slammed for talking about worthy ideals" O.
"Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth"
                                             ...CHARLIE CHAN ON TREASURE ISLAND

Export to Wiki
#54
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 9:04am
  • Joined: March 2008
  • Post Count: 203

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Willis

I grew up mainly in the 60's (b '55) but I remember the tail end of the 50's and the times per episode, Perry Mason, etc. I also am amazed how much the "hr-long" shows have shortened. As I only have 1 TV/DVD set from this century ("Firefly") I remember looking at the DVD player time counter watching that set.....42-43 minutes per episode vs the Perry Mason (early seasons) 52 min's per ep. That's a lot of time removed from the actual shows.

Jeff:

That was exactly my point when I started this thread – what now seems like ages ago!

I was also born in ’55, and probably have most of the same memories that you do.

My collection begins with Perry Mason, and is mostly made up of the sixties shows that I’ve enjoyed all my life.

It was when I got into two modern shows, Lost and Heroes – thanks exclusively to DVD, that I noticed that these shows were a FULL TEN MINUTES shorter than their predecessors, and that was the basis for the thread.

I expected this to be a “Three-and-Out” thread, where someone would quickly answer my question and we would all move on – but instead it has evolved into a fascinating and multi-layered, full-throated discussion that may have plenty of life left in it!

I think that’s great and thanks to all of you – and keep it up!
Export to Wiki
#55
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 9:26am
  • Joined: February 2005
  • Post Count: 1,266

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Things have gone to extremes here. I never said corporations shouldn't earn a profit. I said maximizing profit shouldn't be their only concern.

Stockholders can get a decent return on their investments without corporations throwing aside every single concern in the world except making as much money as possible.

I'd feel odd living a life in which I'd be forced to say, "Oh, look, we can make the MOST money by having 12 minutes of commercials in each half hour, so let's do that!"

I'd like to think I could say, "You know, it's true we'd make $200,000 a week less if we limit the commercials to four minutes a half hour, but we'd get a much larger audience and make people a lot happier, so let's do that."

Maybe I wouldn't, though. Who knows?
Export to Wiki
#56
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 10:24am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary OS
I'm pretty sure he meant corporate greed.
Yeah? Okay, but that's just a bit of slight-of-hand. Corporations are just inanimate objects. It is the investors who drive whatever semblances of emotion that a corporation may have, so why not blame the people who are really to blame -- put a face on the miscreants -- our own parents and grandparents, perhaps ourselves, our neighbors, church friends, our ministers, rabbis and imams, etc.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary OS
I honestly think you are only looking at this situation from the "corporate" or network side of things.
I try to always look at things from a balanced perspective -- and that's with regard to anything, not just related to television. I am a consumer, of course, and indeed my 401(k)s are invested in "suppliers". Clearly, my tendency, like anyone's, would be to see things from the side of their life that is closest to their day-to-day actuality, i.e., as a consumer, because we buy things every day, but I work really hard to understand the other side, and therefore I believe my perspective is a very balanced one.

I have no doubt that from the consumerist side of things, the balanced perspective looks like a corporate-only perspective.
Export to Wiki
#57
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 10:32am
  • Joined: February 2004
  • Location: Florida
  • Post Count: 2,066

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Never mind. Life is too short.
"Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth"
                                             ...CHARLIE CHAN ON TREASURE ISLAND

Export to Wiki
#58
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 10:33am
  • Joined: June 2006
  • Location: Burlington, MA
  • Post Count: 678

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I said maximizing profit shouldn't be their only concern. Stockholders can get a decent return on their investments without corporations throwing aside every single concern in the world except making as much money as possible.
I don't disagree. Many corporations, as a rule, obey all laws; focus on making sure their processes don't pollute the environment, or exploit workers overseas; give back to the communities that they operate in through outreach to the local schools, etc.

I don't know where anyone got the idea, though, that fostering overt consumerism is an ethic. Making television shows with fewer commercials isn't social conscience: Instead, making television shows and using the extra money you make from maximizing profit to plant trees for children to play under, or underwriting a health outreach in a poor community -- THAT is social conscience.

And that's really the critical distinction, and why I made the point, above, about the misuse of the word "greed". A consumer saying that they want suppliers to give consumers more (than supply and demand dictate), or charge them less (than supply and demand dictate) is itself "greed", and actually indefensible, while maximizing profit and then doing some more good in the community -- that's an ethic, that's something to applaud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
I'd feel odd living a life in which I'd be forced to say, "Oh, look, we can make the MOST money by having 12 minutes of commercials in each half hour, so let's do that!"
IMHO, you shouldn't. It's the same as saying, "active persons should eat 0.6 to 1.0 grams protein per kilogram ideal body weight, per day." It is a rational, factual, and measured determination of what is best, given reasonable parameters of goodness.
Export to Wiki
#59
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 6:41pm
  • Joined: February 2005
  • Post Count: 1,266

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Well, I always say everyone draws the line somewhere, eventually.

If TV could determine, as radio seems to have determined, that maximum profits would result from having 29 minutes of commercials an hour -- would they do it? Or would they fear too much of a public outcry? I bet in that case they'd sacrifice some profits in order to uphold what's left of their reputations.

Similarly, even Fox must pass on some shows that are so vile it doesn't matter how much money they'd make. (I realize that's quite an assumption there ...)
Export to Wiki
#60
Rating: 0
6/7/09 at 6:52pm
  • Joined: April 2000
  • Post Count: 4,317

Re: When Did TV Shows Shrink?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff
Similarly, even Fox must pass on some shows that are so vile it doesn't matter how much money they'd make. (I realize that's quite an assumption there ...)

For that to happen it would have to be something along the lines of "Springtime for Ahmadinejad" or "2 Girls 1 Cup: The Sitcom". But I wouldn't rule those out.

STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!

My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray

Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread