Author Topic: GSN's at it again... (Read 7341 times)

Joe Mello · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:13:28 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150562\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 03:17 PM\']
I guess the question is will casino show fans tune into game shows? Myself, I'd rather see two separate channels so everyone is satisfied.[/quote]
So you'd split up ad revenues, force advertisers to possibly spend more, and probably condemn two channels to anonymity in a sea of digital cable oversaturation just because you think no A's are B's and no B's are A's?

I thought we learned that most sweeping generalizations are bad.

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:28:34 PM »

I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...

Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:51:22 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'150567\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:13 PM\']I thought we learned that most sweeping generalizations are bad.[/quote]
No, all sweeping generalizations are bad.

I'm going to disagree with Jimmy as well. To me, the casino and card game shows make perfect sense on a network like GSN. Just because I don't happen to care for them doesn't mean they don't fit a programming niche. There are plenty of traditional game shows I don't care for either.

Jimmy Owen · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2007, 08:09:01 PM »

Cable operators will have the last word. If GSN continues to move to the sports tiers, they will be forced into morphing into more sports-type programming anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a bundle of sports channels just to get GSN.

Hopefully by that time, Sony will have their old game show library available for download and we can pick and choose whatever they have.

Joe Mello · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:07:30 PM »

See, saying that all sweeping generalizations are bad can be, in itself, a sweeping generalization, and people love to harp on semantics.....

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'150568\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM\']
I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...

Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.[/quote]
I was under the impression that Fremantle was the more the reason behind no TPiR than GSN. They're certainly not getting it for at least another year, and execs on the GSN side are probably questioning whether it's worth the wait.

TPIR75 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:30:09 PM »

[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' post=\'150585\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 08:09 PM\']
Cable operators will have the last word. If GSN continues to move to the sports tiers, they will be forced into morphing into more sports-type programming anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a bundle of sports channels just to get GSN.

Hopefully by that time, Sony will have their old game show library available for download and we can pick and choose whatever they have.
[/quote]

That brings up an intresting point. In 5 or 10 years, I honestly would not be suprised if GSN started airing actual sporting games on the network. Can you imagine in 5 years seeing the Mets play on GSN? Or GSN airing games of the New York Rangers? Good and bad would come from this.

Good = Ratings boost (depending on what games they cover), which would mean more money for the network, which means more shows will able to be acquired.

Bad = GSN becomes classified as a "Sports Network", and more and more "Traditional" game shows get phased out for the sporting events.

As for hoping Sony puts their game show library up for downloads...I would not leave my computer! I would download as much of their classics as possible!

alfonzos · « **Reply #21 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:51:14 PM »

For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch. There is no sense of community. All day long it's program segment, ID, comercials, repeat. Cartoon Network, Lifetime and Turner Classic Movies are among the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.

Even Nick @ Nite realizes that it is programming the same reruns night after night but sells itself as comfort food for the eyes. I wish GSN (even the name is dull) would learn that it can be hip to be square.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:08:23 PM »

[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'150643\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:51 PM\']
For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch.
[/quote]
Then don't watch. You're not hurting their feelings.

Quote

Lifetime [is one of] the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.

Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?

dzinkin · « **Reply #23 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:15:28 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150652\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:08 PM\']
[quote name=\'alfonzos\' post=\'150643\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:51 PM\']
For a network about games, GSN isn't fun to watch.
[/quote]
Then don't watch. You're not hurting their feelings.
[/quote]
That wasn't his point and you know it. His point was that other networks go out of their way to make sure that viewers hear not only "hey, we have <Program X> and you should tune in," but "we really love <Program X>, we love bringing it to you and we'd really like you to enjoy it as much as we do." I haven't seen GSN lately so I can't comment firsthand, but at least from Alfonzo's description, GSN seems merely to be going through the motions.

Quote

Quote
Lifetime [is one of] the cable stations that do a great job of giving you the feeling that the programmers are fans of the genre.
Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?

You're serious?

(Hint: if your answer is something along the lines of "I don't have/watch cable," then you had no business asking the question in the first place.)

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:27:41 PM »

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'150653\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:15 PM\']
You're serious?
[/quote]
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.

clemon79 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:32:59 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:27 PM\']
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Christ, Mark, now you're going out of your way to pick fights. You might look back and see what happened to the other users who have done that. Didn't work out so well for them.

Dbacksfan12 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 20, 2007, 05:44:05 PM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'150655\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:32 PM\']
[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 02:27 PM\']
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Christ, Mark, now you're going out of your way to pick fights. You might look back and see what happened to the other users who have done that. Didn't work out so well for them.
[/quote]
Well, let me rephrase it then.
I thought Lifetime was a general entertainment network, with programming directed towards women. If "womens programming" is a genre, then I was a)unaware of it and b)not covered in class.

dzinkin · « **Reply #27 on:** April 20, 2007, 06:10:56 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150654\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:27 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'150653\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 04:15 PM\']
You're serious?
[/quote]
Last I knew, they were "the network for women". Unless I'm not recalling something correctly from my broadcasting class, "women" is not a genre.
[/quote]
Last time I checked Merriam-Webster, the dictionary defined defines genre as, among other things, a "kind" or "sort." Unless I'm not recalling something from, well, the English language, "programming meant to appeal to women" qualifies as a "kind" or "sort."

(Hint: this really isn't the day to start snarking at the moderators.)

Steve Gavazzi · « **Reply #28 on:** April 21, 2007, 02:27:15 PM »

[quote name=\'Joe Mello\' post=\'150637\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 03:07 PM\']
See, saying that all sweeping generalizations are bad can be, in itself, a sweeping generalization, and people love to harp on semantics.....

[quote name=\'tpirfan28\' post=\'150568\' date=\'Apr 19 2007, 06:28 PM\']
I have a feeling that once GSN can get TPiR, we're going to see a real radical change in the network. Whether it be for the better or worse is yet to be known...

Heck, knowing GSN now, they probably won't even pick it up.[/quote]
I was under the impression that Fremantle was the more the reason behind no TPiR than GSN.[/quote]

I was under the impression that the stumbling block was CBS.

davemackey · « **Reply #29 on:** April 23, 2007, 01:53:18 PM »

[quote name=\'Modor\' post=\'150652\' date=\'Apr 20 2007, 05:08 PM\']
Exactly what genre does Lifetime program?
[/quote]
The "we ain't got balls" genre.

/why am I replying to a guy in the iso-booth