HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jan 2005 to 17 Jan 2005 (#2005-5)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:00:06 -0500
There are 5 messages totalling 261 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. The "What if?" Season 6 (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:34:21 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
Jen says of season 6:
> That season showed us that Davis/Panzer cared much more about keeping the
> franchise alive than catering to the fans.
TV is a business. Businesses run on money. The men with the money dictate
what the season looks like. The only reason Season 6 existed in the first
place was to showcase possible spin-off girls. I'm sure P/D would have liked
to have the money handed to them with no restriction so that they could make
episodes designed to thrill the fans (of course, one would have to know just
what "the fans" wanted)(assuming "the fans" were one cohesive block with
only one unified "want") Sure, P/D could have refused to make Season 6 on
principle but last time I looked, they were trying to make a living.
> The stories they used to sell
> for the spin-off weren't exactly stellar, either.
Pilots rarely are. These were extended audition tapes, really, designed to
answer the questions of whether the girls looked good in leather, could be
semi-believable in the action scenes, and had that "whatever" that interests
the men who make the decisions on new series. If we weren't being
sentimental. I'm not sure "The Gathering" qualifies as stellar either.
> Just take out the "A"
> story arc, add "Indiscretions," "To Be," and "Not To Be" to the end of the
> 5th season, and there ya go. That is Highlander: The Series to me.
Some of the spin-off stories aren't that much worse than many
run-of-the-mill HL episodes of previous seasons. We, the old fans, just
weren't happy about the absence of Duncan and the focus on an ever-changing
parade of girls. That said, of course I would have preferred 11 episodes
about Duncan and Joe and Methos rather than about Kyra and Alex and Katya.
Wendy(I liked Two of Hearts)(So very much better than Raven ever
was.)(:::grumble grumble::::)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:56:08 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
> Jen says of season 6:
>> That season showed us that Davis/Panzer cared much more about keeping the
>> franchise alive than catering to the fans.
Wendy--
> TV is a business. Businesses run on money.
Yes, yes. But my quibble is that there shouldn't be a difference in the 2
things Jen was talking about above. Why do "they" (the $ people & those
slavish to them) assume that a quality show w/ a rabid but modest fanbase
can be "fixed" (changed 90%) to suddenly draw in hoards of viewers? I don't
recall it ever happening. Really--what stellar show got dumbed down &
bimboed up (HL:TS season sux's apparent strategy) to become a hit?
It seems much more sensible to try growing the fan base by doing what worked
earlier for the show, only doing it more & doing it bigger & better. Sort
of like how Henson did the Farscape mini-series, & how Joss Whedon seems to
be doing the Firefly movie.
Forget great Highlander--DPP can't even make _bad_ Highlander anymore.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:35:51 -0000
From: "a.j.mosby" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] The "What if?" Season 6
>> Jen says of season 6:
>>> That season showed us that Davis/Panzer cared much more about keeping
>>> the
>>> franchise alive than catering to the fans.
>
> Wendy--
>> TV is a business. Businesses run on money.
>
> Yes, yes. But my quibble is that there shouldn't be a difference in the 2
> things Jen was talking about above. Why do "they" (the $ people & those
> slavish to them) assume that a quality show w/ a rabid but modest fanbase
> can be "fixed" (changed 90%) to suddenly draw in hoards of viewers? I
> don't
> recall it ever happening. Really--what stellar show got dumbed down &
> bimboed up (HL:TS season sux's apparent strategy) to become a hit?
I seem to recall this has been discussed at length with Donna and Gillian
and I've been around the hosues with them a few times about it. Ultimately,
whether executed well or not, the ONLY way that a sixth season was ever
going to be greenlighted was a) it was shorter (and therefore cheaper) and
b) it acted as a springboard of sorts for a spin-off. NO other reason. The
Highlander series was no longer pulling in the decent numbers and couldn't
continue in similar form - it didn't make business sense. Any spin-off was
always going to be a female lead as (rightly/wrongly it was deemed that this
variation might be popular - and let's remember Xena, albeit of a vastly
different tone, was hugely popular) and therefore the season was going to
be top-heavy with them. Creatively there are potential handcuffs there, but
there's also a paycheck so I really don't blame any of the Highlander staff
for stickign around to give it the old college try. Yes, the episodes were
largely weak and the shoe-horn aspect obvious, but if any one of the
episodes had really struck a chord, mayhaps we would have overlooked the
whole contest.
> It seems much more sensible to try growing the fan base by doing what
> worked
> earlier for the show, only doing it more & doing it bigger & better. Sort
> of like how Henson did the Farscape mini-series, & how Joss Whedon seems
> to
> be doing the Firefly movie.
But, as above, what worked earlier for the show WASN'T working. The ratings
were falling dramatically. Decision: do you invest a ton more money in a
failing project in the hopes it turns it around, or do you go elsewhere and
try your luck? It's not an easy answer if you pretend it's your $10million
or so and there's a real chance it could all *poof* if you make the wrong
choice. The examples of Henson and Whedon may be misleading. The factors
involved in the Henson/Farscape mini-series are vast, even if you don't go
deep behind the scenes. There were many interested parties who actively
wanted the show (which was doing ok - if not stellar - ratings to continue
in some form because they saw a way to make it work viably) to continue.
With Highlander the only ones who really wanted it to continue (discounting
the writers-for-hire) were the fans - and not enough of them were that
bothered. While on air Whedon's Firefly was a total failure in everything
but the creative aspect. You, I and everyone with taste knows Firefly was a
superb series, but after FOX screwed around with it so much it wasn't
getting the ratings to please the advertisers. No advertisers - no show. It
was only when it became a phenomenal success on DVD that another company
entirely picked up the rights and considered making the film version. If the
DVD sales hadn't stayed at the top of the Amazon chart for the best part of
three consecutive months, no-one would have looked at Firefly again. I don't
have the figures, but I doubt that Highlander's box-sets merit a ripple by
geunine comparison.
I would have loved Highlander to continue. I still would. But in the current
climate do we grumble that no-one is giving Highlander an even break, or do
we criticise Davis/Panzer for tilting at every single windmill that might
get a HL project off the ground in some way shape or form. The ideal is
somewhere in the middle. But Hollywood rarely deals with 'middle'.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:21:16 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
me before--
>> Yes, yes. But my quibble is that there shouldn't be a difference in the
>> 2
>> things Jen was talking about above. Why do "they" (the $ people & those
>> slavish to them) assume that a quality show w/ a rabid but modest fanbase
>> can be "fixed" (changed 90%) to suddenly draw in hoards of viewers? I
>> don't
>> recall it ever happening. Really--what stellar show got dumbed down &
>> bimboed up (HL:TS season sux's apparent strategy) to become a hit?
John--
> The
> Highlander series was no longer pulling in the decent numbers and couldn't
> continue in similar form - it didn't make business sense. Any spin-off was
> always going to be a female lead
Yes, I know & that's fine--the ladies in theory weren't the problem w/
season 6, & the female lead wasn't the problem w/ Raven. But who made the
decision that it was all going to be something so much _less_ than the HL
we'd watched for 5 years? That's what infuriated me at the time, & it still
puzzles me from a practical standpoint.
me again--
>> It seems much more sensible to try growing the fan base by doing what
>> worked
>> earlier for the show, only doing it more & doing it bigger & better.
>> Sort
>> of like how Henson did the Farscape mini-series, & how Joss Whedon seems
>> to
>> be doing the Firefly movie.
John--
> But, as above, what worked earlier for the show WASN'T working. The
> ratings
> were falling dramatically.
Yes, just as Firefly had flat ratings & Farscape's ratings didn't merit its
expense to make. I just don't like that Highlander's TPTB went the way they
did--selling out the franchise. "Sure, we can make Highlander
Lite--substitute jiggle & jest for plot & all that pesky stuff that provoked
thought. No problem!"
Other creative people in the genre field like Henson & Whedon have lately
been able to overcome outright cancellation & continue telling their
convoluted, dark & thought-provoking stories w/o ruining things in a doomed
attempt to pander to the masses. Compared to DPP, they've done far better
for their franchises, their fans &--of course--for themselves.
> I would have loved Highlander to continue. I still would.
Not me--I'm not interested in some piece of garbage that just happens to be
called Highlander, & I can't see DPP managing anything else at this point.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:28:15 -0600
From: Ginny <RED57@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The "What if?" Season 6
Wendy wrote on 1/17/2005, 10:34 AM:
> Wendy(I liked Two of Hearts)(So very much better than Raven ever
> was.)(:::grumble grumble::::)
Oh, yeah. Two of Hearts coulda been a contendah.
--
Ginny
RED57@aol.com
ginny@midrange.com
http://www.blogula-rasa.com
http://www.razzberryvinaigrette.blogspot.com
I have too damn many blogs.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 15 Jan 2005 to 17 Jan 2005 (#2005-5)
*************************************************************