Anybody want to buy a slightly used CW?
The Riverdale and Batwoman network is reportedly going up on the auction block
Aux News Television shows
When we think of The CW these days, it’s usually in terms of capes and tights—not surprising, given how much of the network’s schedule is filled with the various superhero shows produced by Greg Berlanti and his wide array of collaborators and co-producers. (Also: The horny Archie show.) But now we’ll have to start thinking of it with a different descriptor: “For sale.”
That’s right folks: For the low, low prize of probably many millions of dollars, you might be able to get your hands on a slightly used 16-year-old TV network. THR reports today on a letter issued to CW employees by network CEO Mark Pedowitz, confirming rumors that the channel’s joint owners, ViacomCBS and Warner Media, are putting it up on the block.
(Some background context: The CW was founded back in 2006 out of the wreckage of Warner’s WB and Viacom’s UPN, with the two also-ran networks merging together to try the fill the gaps left in America’s heart by Homeboys In Outer Space. The network is owned jointly by the two companies, with each supposedly set to provide half its content; the arrival of Warner’s Berlanti stuff, and the fact that Viacom has mostly been offering up stuff like Dynasty and Charmed, has skewed that balance of late.)
The money logic behind the sale is kind of interesting, in so far as it’s another symptom of the breakdown of the old symbiotic relationships between networks and streamers. As an ad-driven network, The CW has never been especially profitable, typically lagging far behind the other four major networks in terms of ratings. But it found a niche for itself in recent years as a content provider, licensing shows like Arrow and The Flash to Netflix in deals that both a) generated cash and b) boosted the linear ratings for the Berlantiverse shows after Netflix viewing got new fans hooked.
But the rise of the Streaming Wars has taken a crowbar to the knee of that whole concept. With HBO Max and Paramount+ ever-hungry for content, it makes less sense to funnel shows to a company like Netflix, which is less a customer these days than a direct competitor. The Netflix deal that saw Riverdale featured as a major part of the streamer’s adopted content ended in 2019; it took a major chunk of The CW’s revenue with it when it went.
Hence: Fire sale!
Here’s Pedowitz talking to his staff, which, warning, serious business euphemism incoming:
First, as many of you are aware, over the past year or so, this transformative time in our industry has led to a series of business activity across media and content companies. Given that environment right now, ViacomCBS and Warner Bros. are exploring strategic opportunities to optimize the value of their joint venture in The CW Network.
The upshot of which is, well: The CW is for sale. THR notes that local TV network owner Nexstar, which already owns a ton of CW affiliates, is expected to make a strong play to try to acquire the network.
181 Comments
If any of you can hear a slight keening sound coming from the general direction of Los Angeles, that would be Joe Straczynski, realizing that his plans for a Babylon 5 reboot have just been torpedoed in the most hilariously ironic way possible. “Warner sells off for scrap the network that they completely forgot were developing a B5 reboot for” is absolutely the most on-the-nose thing that could happen to the most cursed franchise property in all of science fiction.
What does a “keening” sound like, actually?
An incessant, drunken screaming wail.
At least that was my memory from the Irish wakes of my forbearers.
Yikes!The notification page of this Godforsaken “audience-engagement” plugin, no…..Uugggh!
Ahh..I see it, now.Thanks for “the Irish” specification, BTW.
That melodious…..And…..Elongated?
Well y’know…a man without love is no man at all.
The B5 reboot will probably be moved to HBO Max, just like Stargirl was.
Stargirl wasn’t moved to HBO Max. It moved to the CW from DC Universe.
It was going to do that, but DC Universe stopped existing and everything there was moved to HBO Max.
Is this some alternative facts bs? It moved to the CW.https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/stargirl-renewed-season-2-cw-dc-universe-1234698955/amp/https://deadline.com/2021/10/joel-mchale-stargirl-series-regular-season-3-1234848919/amp/
It was always on the CW after it aired on DC Universe and then on HBO Max. I mean, that happened during it’s first season, too, so it didn’t really “move” there so much as it was always there.
No. Episodes from the first season premiered on DC Universe and aired the next day on the CW. The CW ordered season 2, which aired exclusively on the CW.Once the season finished airing, it eventually went up on HBO Max – just like Batwoman, but you wouldn’t argue Batwoman is an HBO Max show, would you?Also, which is it? “It was going to [move to the CW]” or “it didn’t really “move” there so much as it was always there.”
Your mouth to god’s ear and all that, but I’m dubious that anyone will be able to make the case to HBO that they should spend that kind of money on a space opera show.
It seems like a very odd project all ways round. I know the original show is very rated from a production standpoint, but I don’t personally think that necessitates what seemed to be a retelling of the same lengthy story from the same writer.
I think they got caught in a bit of a trap wherein all of the attempt to make spinoff/sequel shows and movies tanked so the whole thing faded from memory, and so a reboot made sense as a way to rejuvenate the project.And I’d suspect that the length would be the #1 change: the original series is a weird transitional artifact that’s trying to make something analogous to modern serialized prestige TV while still wearing the vestments of a syndication-era project: 25-27 episodes per season, because that’s how you hit the magic 100-episode mark that lets you retire off the syndication package royalties. There’s a lot of filler that can be cut, and that’s before you even get into what happened to the fifth season.
“There’s a lot of filler that can be cut…”Gray 17 is Missing walks into the room, hears the chatter, quickly backs out, hoping to not attract any attention…
Grey 17 is Missing trips over “TKO,” who was trying to remain inconspicuous by the drinks cart, and all the glassware goes flying everywhere…
JMS has confirmed that it would be a different story. Just like the reboot of BSG didn’t do the same thing as the original BSG.
Interesting. Still seems odd to me, but it’s his world so he can do what he wants with it.
I don’t know, The Expanse is doing good for Amazon Prime, isn’t it?
From all accounts, The Expanse ended up there because Bezos, personally, was a huge fan and wanted to rescue the show. Being richer than god has its perks.And even so they shortened the sixth season order to 6 episodes and cancelled it.
There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope. The death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future, or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born…in pain.
See also the Lost Boys reboot that the CW has had in development forever, but keep pushing it to next season every year.
I imagine they are recasting since most of the original cast is no longer with us.
It is going to have a different cast. That was already the case.
So CW will go from being the forgotten child of networks to the WGN of networks?Does WGN still even make shoes or did they give up too?
I was curious to know since you mentioned it, and well. . .This happened earlier this year. Seems a bizarre move, imo, but then I haven’t even thought of or seen a WGN show in years. Think the last one I remember seeing was Outsiders with Opie from Sons of Anarchy.
Remember when WGN used this logo for all of 9 months?
Not a shitpost?.!This was genuinely the on-screen bug for their now-defunct “basic cable” channel( not to be confused with the WGN-TV network, which inspired its name)?
It was. I think I remember it from Cubs games, which back then still ran on the superstation.
Ahh..Thank Goodness that they haven’t syndicated the “Big Brother®” US adapted mini-franchise!(Nevermind picking it up for first-run.)Yet.
Yes, this was their first stab at the “WGN America” branding after moving past the “WGN SuperStation” moniker.I’ll give them this: The tagline was true, as you definitely could not ignore it when you were channel surfing and landed on a rerun of Coach with a pair of anime sex eyes floating in the corner of the screen.
Ahh..So they were basically deployed as what’s-called: “Arresting graphics.”(Given you’re also revealing that it appears like “F-eyes” to you.)
It might be “bizarre”, but it certainly: Didn’t come out of nowhere.They originally announced doing the same for months, and then hid their commonplace-incompetence by blaming the ongoing global healthcare-tragedy.. And now, they finally did it!So it’s not like they blindsided anybody. At least they got Ma’am Ashleigh Banfield, for starters.
I just meant bizarre in that I would’ve never thought of WGN as a channel that was competing with CNN and Fox news. It probably was, it’s that I never really paid attention to it, and I always associated the channel with reruns of Saved by the Bell and White Sox games. If asked earlier today I would’ve said WGN was similar to the CW or TNT or TBS. I guess one could say I am pretty ignorant on WGN.
The local station WGN-9 in Chicago is basically that. The WGN Superstation was basically trying to model what Ted Turner did with TBS Superstation (remember when that’s what we called it. People forget that TBS was originally WTCG from Atlanta and took off when they got rebroadcast on cable and satellite systems across the nation) that basically mirrored the local Chicago station with some differences. Yes, for many years, the Superstation could carry Cubs and WhiteSox games, but that died in the RSN era (one big thing for TBS’s old superstation days was the Braves games, WOR from NYC did the same with Mets games at one time). That hasn’t been the case for at least a decade, though. They tried to do the cable channel route with original series, but I don’t think many broke through. Then they went into the news thing, because it’s cheaper to produce more or less and you can usually find steady advertisers.
Well, that’s an “ancient” lineup by now — then. And since “@mero” has done an excellent job delving on that succinctly, so I’m gonna remain strictly on this topic-of-choice.TL;DR I know, right? Actually the plan was never even conceived before the failure following the brouhaha about Sinclair® Media Group merger as the collective popular-discourse came to their useful realisation that there’s far more to “conservative [broadcast ]media” than the mere spectre of a single cable-news channel[ launched by a white-immigrant having an ironclad grip over the media-&-entertainment ecosystem of his homeland in spite of treasonous bonafides] aka, FOX®. So, after the erstwhile-Tribune™ owners throwing hissy-fit and threatening to close many local-stations( _à la_ brand [ CNN ]®’s TimeWarner™’s manouvres for the USDOJ approval of getting “rescued” by AT&T® if the substitute, Nexstar® Media deal isn’t approved by USFCC) in spite of them having established “goodwill” by suing Sinclair® to the tune of mere billion-dollars for “breach of contract”, Nexstar®’s C-suite reportedly did a market-research and found that apparently the urban-legends of “iMpArtIaLitY”, “nEuTrAlItY” & “oBjEcTivItY” in [broadcast-]journalism could be tapped into. They even codenamed it “Project Neutral”, for Pete’s sake! How could it not be utterly-sincere, wrong? They found out that the so-called “personality-driven news” was what frustrated folks. As in spite of those ideals, somehow a famous-newsperson is seen as their own persona by the very same audience in spite of their yearning for those ideals being the practical and hence, all of primetime cable-news across the aisle being: “opinionated.”( I guess that’s how middle-aged folks profiting off “new[-age] Journalism” feel better about themselves.) So apart from promoting it as strictly not personality-driven, hard and straight news-outlet, where they didn’t forget to tout that how they’re in fact hiring only-&-only local news “faces” for this national-news operation from Nexstar®’s roster( after successfully acquiring Tribune®, it has turned into the #1/largest station-owner) and yes, even from outside — especially given the fact that the pre-established celebrity of national-news “faces” mean that the audiences would struggle to shake off the presuppositions about them, if not outright reject them cynically( a verifiable empirical-fact, or to put it *simply*: [implicit ]confirmation-bias). Fuucckk.. Apart from hiring “faces” belonging to the inarguable “single most-trusted medium of news”, they even hired so-called “rhetoricians” to screen the lexicology of phrases and terms being deployedin the output, apparently to weed-out implicit-bias of connotations packed in glossary — as well.Alas.. All it took was 1 “Presidential” tweet from a now-suspended “blue check” elite and whoa..: The US “Left”, which is ‘neoliberal’ by international-standards — got the “L” of the curse/jinx that has just been unleashed. Almost immediately folks anti-“Him” dismissed the project, they even celebrated [ CNN ] Newssource™ subscription of Nexstar® stations getting cancelled after the news-behemoth got whiff of the fact that the Corporate has issued a policy to prioritise the stations to hold-off access to a footage of any major news-story in their respective media-markets till the time it gets to NewsNation® newsgathering team before it reaches other cable-news outlets( right of first-refusal, if you will), aka would-be rivals. Jovial howls of “karma” went on. Funny thing is.. I recall [ CNN ] itself pulling-off something far, far worse than this in 2003. They aired a leaked-tape of “UBL” produced by ALJAZEERA® but suppressed from the broadcast/coverage by them based on newsworthiness grounds and upon being called-out by them, the former ‘pulled-off Edison’ that: “Heh! Our understanding of the international affiliate-arrangement is that we can access every single property of Al Jazeera Satellite Channel (Jazeera) without having to seek prior-license whatsoever for any prescribed purposes as we deem fit[ but Jazeera can’t have the very same level of access to our IP, though]. Teehee!”( Paraphrased) Granted it was the era when quite a lot of FOX® personalities were [ CNN ]® personalities, as was the case with rest of mainstream-press across the board — but I can’t see how their Corporate releasing such a shitty PR-spin to justify propagating a kind of illicitly-gained content produced by their partner whom the likes of recently dropped-dead Rumsfeld( no honorific!) & still-breathing Wolfowitz( no honorific, either!), 2 most high-profile names that are coming to my mind — spent quite a few of their day-jobs attacking the said partner for, as “breadcrumbs” for the favourable ilk in the said press to attack their _alien_ peer with: Can meaningfully mitigate that.Then.. Numerous “boos” and jeers came after it turned-out that amongst NewsNation®’s numerous touting of “integrity of local-news coverage” & even that “rhetoricians” gimmick: They also hired a press-advisor who actually worked for red white-house. The 1st week, starting out as a 3-hour programming-block of dual-branded “NewsNation®” airing only ‘NewsNation® Prime’ for whole 3 hours( including commercials) a moderate-success, if it could be called that — even if midnight _encore_ of the originally-LIVE newscasts is factored-in. Then, predictably: The ratings slipped. Then mere few weeks and the “exclusive” interview with said “blue check” case aired, but turns out: It got leaked that the interview was made possible to this relative-novice outlet Thanks to a C-level suit of a non-executive( _i.e._ an “executive” who isn’t involved in day-to-day affairs, but draws millions from the coffers anyways — exactly like the rest of Corporate America) who have had personal-professional relationship with the said case( the latter mentioned by his full public-name in that fateful public-tweet, to be clear) as he syndicated some seconds-long “commentary” fillers of him across radio stations nationwide during his reality TV era enabled by [ CNN ]®’s current CEO( the latter part was hushed, no prizes for guessing!). Nevermind that other than the CEO part, in words they would comprehend: About “half of” Hollywood was more than publicly-chummy with him, back then. Such a supposed “bastion of integrity”, eh? Nevermind also the fact that the entrepreneurial reality-TV baron, also a white-immigrant who’s inarguably the #1 in reality-TV and has went on from jumping ships on self-employment to Hearst®, to MGM® & supposedly, amazon® from the near-future onwards is: Still going strong. And yes, did I tell you he’s one of the very very few high-profile individuals in showbiz who proclaims he’s a “man of faith( read Christian)“ even as he profits-off from output which directly contravenes the teachings of Jesus? In any case.. That interview was derided as “softball” not just by the “Interwebs”, but even local Chicago newspapers had their op-ed columns dedicated to it: Dissecting it _surgically_ but only critical-outlook. While commending the COI declaration( or, “full disclosure” in contemporary journalistic-parlance, even as I’ve myself noticed quite a lot of mainstream-news outlets don’t practice it that way — especially if the story concerns their corporate-holdings) which preceded the tape, they nevertheless criticised it for the overall “softball” tenor and worse, failing to cross-check then-President’s post-truth TPs even after the interview was broadcast in its newscast — even as they reported some facts which contradicted number of those TPs without directly-linking to that interview, both before and after the broadcast. And yes, they also appreciated that the then-candidate in now-President seemingly also got an “equal time”-ish offer for an interview of the very same duration, even as they obligatorily expressed scepticism over the “softball” quotient of that hypothetical interview as the venture was already being denounced for having “rightwards tilt” by the “Interwebs” before the interview got to air originally.As if it’s any consolation: Not-so-surprisingly, it was the highest-rated broadcast in erstwhileWGN® America’s that programming-block’s entire history.( Ha! Apparently, quite a number of audiences loyally devoting their eyeballs to “the Eye”, that consistently #1 network which is still that in spite of their “Entertainment”-structured “60 Minutes®” franchise being part of the “fAqE news” cabal — managed to temporarily find that channel to catch that much-publicised _tête-à-tête_, after all.) And that inevitably acquired far more takes on the “shortcomings” of it, as well. They literally made an ALJAZEERA®( _i.e._ pushing the level of [over]scrutiny one won’t tolerate on their own side) out of it! Or at least.. What could be an American equivalent of that.Soon after.. Few high-profile D-suite resignations followed( that cherished “local news” management who had been promoted from the mother-station WGN-TV), one after the other — as the aforementioned findings of that C-suite suit’s past gained far more traction than originally, afterwards. Shadowed also were the other exits of on-air faces of “local news”, both from scandalous( straight news) to non-scandalous( weather, apparently the C-suite had “straight, regular meteorology coverage” as their complimentary-plan, given the rationale of The Weather Channel® turning into an infotainment long-long before Mr Byron Allen, and both of newer competitors in AccuWeather® & WeatherNation® failing to gain wide-distribution because/in-spite of having round-the-clock/straight LIVE meteorology coverage) gigs, who succeeded in getting hired by both of old and new media.⏎By the time it came to nothing more than 6 months: The C-suite lost all patience but instead of treating it as some final “writing on the wall”, doubled-down on their NewsNation® credo but virtually abandoning all of their supposed principles, or at least USPs! Come 1st March, 2021 — the whole WGN® America got gulped-down by some 3-hours programming block in spite of not much expansion but yes.. After “local news” management fleeing, “local news faces” de-prioritised, when I said with genuine admiration about them hiring Ma’am Ashleigh Banfield — I’ve since got to know that the rebrand was to coincide with the launch of her eponymous-show on the very same night. As if it wasn’t clear enough how much they hedged their bets on her as a future of the venture, her show is the first-ever to have its production-base somewhere outside of Greater Chicago area — the NY tri-state area, ‘course! Talk of not having “talking heads” at primetime[ with no disrespect to her hard-earned, lengthy _résumé_ as a field-journalist]. Surrounded by other “personalities” with the newscast, ‘NewsNation® Prime’ being reduced to a mere hour. Months later, other “personalities” from Greater Chicago region — including but not limited to, the guy who did that White House interview: Got their own shows. And hey.. They hired the guy behind everything from ‘Live “let’s destroy the evidence of our heroes being villainous, pronto!” PD’ to Mediaite® “let’s churn everything from the rest of press by framing it appealingly to the most ad-clicking demo, no matter how ludicrously-salacious” & ‘course, Mary Sue®, et al. — their 2nd “personality” based in said tri-state area. While not-so-surprisingly, the hours of LIVE newscast during weekends have certainly increased — from previously-nonexistent-in-programming-block-to-little-initially, so now they currently have at least 3 newscasts, and at least 4 “personality” shows on weekdays.⏎⏎And that’s a charitable-count, given their market-research apparently missed to measure how sincere “morning news” shows are perceived to be.
Im wearing a pair now.
But then where will we get “new” Whose Line episodes?!
Generously assuming you know enough about not just searching [for news-reports ]with the right-keywords, but even those “VOD search-engines” which literally tell you where to buy/rent and/or stream a searched-title: You could always try reaching-out to the distributor( “studio”).
I personally think of Smallville and Supernatural. But I’m not one of the youngins anymore.
I’m pretty sure those were both WB shows that got rolled over to the CW. I’m not a youngin’ and I think of The Vampire Diaries and Gossip Girl.
I always forget that Gilmore Girls ran for a couple more season on the CW too.
Ohh..{USFCC}…Shoot!{ /USFCC}It’s the increasingly-monopolistic lustful owner of indescribably-overrated Home Box Office, which actually owns both of those shows a hun-percent.
Smallville def is based on starting in 2001. Possibly also SPN.
True but Supernatural only had 1 season on WB.
Christ, I think of Unhappily Ever After
Null.
Void
Hehe…!Will give ya that.Even though the fact was hidden behind my homely( may read stereotypical) {FCC }shootpost{ /FCC}.
It’s always Unhappily Ever After this, Unhappily Ever After that; what about Nikki?!
Thankfully, at least one of them shows is owned literally 50:50!
I think of Buffy, which is kind of a CW show as it started on WB but finished its run on UPN.
Then it never hit CW.
Somebody recently did a CW all time show contest & the final four were Smallville, Supernatural, Arrow, and maybe The Vampire Diaries, with Supernatural justifiably winning
Supernatural lasted longer than the network it debuted on! The WB only lasted for 11 years, but Supernatural lasted for 15.
I think of Buffy and Star Trek: Voyager. I am truly old
If it means less influence by “dumb it down” CBS, its a good thing.
Homeboys in Outer Space. The TV blogger’s friend.
A-gain..: Null.
It was no ‘Shasta McNasty!”
And ‘Shasta McNasty’ was barely a ‘Pigsty’
Remembering what we’ve lost:
You lo-lo-loved *that*?
I enjoyed it — it’s silly, but as network promos go it’s one of the better ones, right up there with “Trouble Sleeping? Take Sherlock!”, filled with bits of Holmes annoyingly awakening Watson at all hours….
“We’re proud to present on the WB, another bad show that one one will see!!!”
“Ughhh I need a drink.”
Nothing will top this. I say this as someone from the other side of Pond, who never had opportunity to see it originally (yay for YouTube).
That is an astonishing artifact. Is that The Bronze set? Props to Emma Caulfield and the young blond woman whom I do not recognize for knowing how to sell a party to the camera. I wonder why Katie Holmes couldn’t make the principal shoot.
Maybe she was filming ‘Go’ at the time?
There were several blondes in there, but you might mean Leslie Bibb? She had the most screen time of them.
Oh?
I take it back.Wow!
Many have fallen to the power of the Dubba Dubba, myself included. There’s no shame in it.
Good gravy
I’m about to explode in my pants from all the Year 2000 in this, holy shit.
I’ve never seen this before. Oh my god it’s so early 2000s aspirational. I can smell the Abercrombie perfume through my laptop. I recognise maybe half those people. The Buffy cast, and Katie Holmes, Joshua Jackson, James Vanderbeek, and Michelle Williams. I didn’t watch Dawson but I remember she was always the afterthought. And she has the best career of all of them. They all look so young! You’re right Katie Holmes looks like she was edited in later. People forget she was the one with the movie career that looked like it was going somewhere before she decided to be the Scientology Virgin Mary. And I recognize Shannon Doherty but not the other two from Charmed? Wasn’t there this whole thing where Alyssa Milano got her fired? I wonder why she was made to do this and not the other two. And was Sabrina the Teenage Witch the only sitcom on the network? And Kerry Russell is so pretty! How did that haircut cause an international incident?Handkerchief tops! Lowriders! Ironed straight hair! Shiny everything! No woman in Hollywood could wear bras or underwear until 2007! And yet somehow they look more natural and less plastic than famous people now.
In case you’re wondering what Chuck Jones thought of that, he thought “I like money!”
I prefer this version:
I say Dowd and the other writers should buy the CW and turn it into their own network!
Would watch
Maureen…?
Netflix bucks the trend and decides to get into broadcast television.
Did he just say “a series of business activity”? Who wrote this, Vincent Adultman?
just wrote* There! Be compassionate, FTFY 😊
Herb Spanfeller.
The CW is just three pitch meetings in a trench coat.
Oh, three pitch meetings in a trench coat is tight!
Yeah yeah yeah!
I am stunned Supernatural didn’t make them rich. It was on for like fifteen years!
Bwahahahahah!Now only if stereotypical fans/stans knew how the audiovisual-content distribution biz works, then..: They would’ve also figured-out by now that…..Their existence or the lack of has no tangible value on the success-rate of an IP whatsoever. And maybe, …..Just mayhaps…..There would be room for not just progress, but fatherfucking evolution in a huge chunk of Civilized Humanity.
Serious question what is the CW without it’s line up of DC Comics/Warner Brothers properties? What is left there?!? Strike out Riverdale and Arrowverse. Maybe they keep the rights to what they have but their future is done.
There’s that Penn and Teller show? And Whose Line, which for the last couple of years has just been stuff from pre-COVID taping sessions that didn’t make it to air right away.
Amusingly, that’s literally the 2 shows you managed to mention — which really display the _chutzpāh_ of The CW®, as they literally got zilch for either.As they’re owned by independent distributors far beyond the clutches of ViacomCBS®, nevermind the insanely-monopolistic WarnerMedia®.As I’ve said since soon after I ‘met’ The CW®: It is nothing more..{truncated}
The only companies that would make sense to buy it as is are Lionsgate and Sony.They’re like the only production studios that still make shows for whomever is buying. Otherwise you’re looking at another just super local that just runs repeats all the time.
Now only if “sense” is what Capitalism had all meant.In any case..I don’t think either of them would go on to inherit a heavily USFCC-regulated network just ‘cus it’s all their veritable-USP is: The international-sales anchor.They’re just doing fine-&-dandy with the light-touch regulated cable networks that they operate, with or without any “Original” programming to varying degrees.⏎ TL;DR not allowedAnd since I’m not yet-another Ameri[cano]centrist: I should deign to reveal that Sony Pictures Television International Networks have been wounding-down their [linear-]operations left, right and center.Fudge..! They’re so-so-so desperate that in spite of having fire sold-off their businesses virtually everywhere except the economically-defined regions of “LatAm” & “SAARC”, where they have been reporting profits in quarterly-results for quite some time now: They nevertheless choose to go on and merge their SAARC’s operations with a multinational “ethnic programming” giant in India in spite of not just an inevitable music distribution-&-publishing antitrust roadblock that’s ideally expected to occur, but even realer than the now-a-self-parody-HBO-show-which-showbiz-news-still-keeps-hawking boardroom-to-C-suite drama involving not an angel-but-‘angelic’ institutional-investor and the long minority-owning “promoters” in a multinymic right-wing family( think of India’s Murdochs, even though the patriarch has directly fired shots at actual ‘Murdoch Sr’; #SpreadTheWord!) duelling it out for the control of a media giant whose own balance-sheet is in tatters, even as it continues to monopolise certain sectors unperturbed. Yep, it’s literally like Home Box Office’s parent WarnerMedia®! You got it. So.. Shades of ViacomCBS®’ ‘Billions®’ also, mayhaps?⏎*The point-being:* Sony® Entertainment is so-so-so desperate to get the fudge out of one of their “profitable” regions in spite of their long-held legacy there and as if that’s too “senty,” even with all of the troubles aforementioned — you can only imagine how much they would’ve to regress in order to seriously go-ahead with making an offer for heavily-regulated network which would nevertheless make them do all the hardwork for monetising, anyways.
Nnobody pays attention to you. Please stop.
First of all, Sire: Thank Heavens or whatever-you-believe-in, that in the times when the hackneyed-potshots at “uNiQuElY eViL” TWDC are still considered “cool”, at least the increasingly-monopolistic WarnerMedia® doesn’t own ‘Riverdale®’ IP. That’s why The CW® output of Archie Comics® is owned neatly 50:50.And.. Speaking of: Nancy Drew® perhaps? Duh…!In any case..: Last time I checked, neither of those “lone star” franchises you mentioned made a jack for The CW®’s own coffers, so I can’t see what’s so special about those 2 than the rest of their output owned by either of AT&T® or National Amusements® or both, either.
I can’t tell if this guy is some dumb teenager who recently watched a bunch of YouTube explainer videos about the rise of streaming services, or if it’s someone doing a very good satire of a dumb teenager who recently watched a bunch of YouTube explainer videos about the rise of streaming services.
I’m always fascinated to come across an Internet commenter who uses weird typography, like consistently using the registered trademark symbol or other unusual symbols, odd abbreviations, etc. Like, a lot of what they’re saying sounds reasonable but then the writing style makes them sound like a lunatic.
You’ve got to hope it’s a bit they’re doing for the internet, otherwise their lives would be so terribly difficult. There’s plainly ideas in there but, just when it feels like you’re about to grasp one of them, there’s a word like “multinymic” thrown in.It’s probably word-play that the author finds amusing but there’s no way for us to decipher it. Multiple New York Microphones? Sort of makes sense, I suppose. The general approach doesn’t really work though since “multinymic” isn’t a word. Or perhaps it is. Are the cool kids all saying “multinymic” these days?
At first I thought it was a bot.
Careful!If I were somebody spending my days in and nights out on spiders like G/O®’s Media’s network of sites: I would be very careful to take potshots at the so-called “influencer” culture. Nevermind the double-whammy of “r/IAmSoSmart” by going the lazy ageist-insult route.Need I go on about mocking the subject’s alleged target-audience?
OK, now I’m pretty sure this is some impressive evolution of those old “repurposed Daily Mail comments” accounts. It’s well done, but also kind of a sad waste of time.
“Daily Fail”???Who do you think I am?A reporter who pays for your leads? And even if I was.. I won’t pay you for anything…..Well, except for Messiah Lord Churchill returning as a walking-dead in order to put an end to the bread-lines at ComInter ruled countries. Granted, a tip as humongous as that may require wiring you a sum possible only be the direct-intervention of my supreme-overlord in Lord Sir through online-banking, from inside His estate at the private-isle of His choosing.⏎As for the “sad waste of time” part: Quite a lot of folks who think going to toilet is somesuch, also have their breakfasts atop the toilet-seats. Last time I checked.. Unless G/O® Media’s covertly financed by Soros, you can rest-assured: None of your feel-good social-justice bickering around here is making an iota of difference in the real-world°.
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.
Disclaimer courtesy of..?
Your unsung forebears.
?
Either way, they think they’re really clever.
There was Supernatural for 15 years and I hear they’re making a prequel spin off now.But I don’t know if Warner keeps the rights to that in the sale.
Nancy Drew for one. I also watch but will make less of an argument for In the Dark
Any sale of the network would probably come with stipulations regarding rights to their most valuable properties moving forward, even if it’s some sort of guaranteed licensing agreement with Warner for X years.A buyer who doesn’t make that part of the agreement would either be really stupid or offering far less than what the sellers would be willing to take.
Nancy Drew is great.
Whose Line is it Anway?
I am enjoying both Roswell, New Mexico and 4400. One thing I appreciate about the Wb is the high amount of scifi shows they have, albeit with the standard CW soapy relationship drama. But yeah, without DC stuff (which I also like) their schedule will be quite thin.
Just now realising that all this time I haven’t known what ‘CW’ stands for.
I’d always assumed it was a Country Western music network that got rebranded.
Haha!How…..Conservative?!!
I’d always assumed it was a Country Western music network that got rebranded.“We’re the Bob’s Country Bunker of TV networks!”
They do have both kinds of TV…
You seriously wanna know?
It stands for CBS and WB. That’s all.
Incorrect.It stands for “Currently Wealthy”.They’re thinking about changing it to the VB though (Very Broke).
Reminds me of the “Ain’t No Blacks on the TV Screen” sketch from MAD TV back in the day. “WB? Stands for ‘Where Brothers’!’”
I miss the days when The WB and UPN existed on their own
People make fun of the CW but I’ve liked a lot of their shows and some have been truly excellent like Crazy-Ex. They take a lot of shots on shows and do a better job at letting them run for multiple seasons than most networks do.I also think their current DC show lineup is pretty good. Legends has always been reliable fun, Superman & Lois is really solid with one of the better portrayals of Superman in live action period, and Stargirl is maybe the best of the bunch.
Well..As I’ve been posting for time-immemorial wherever and whenever relevant and as this article begrudgingly notes, so for anybody actually reading that to the end: It was all ‘cus of their “secret-sauce”…..Nothing less, nothing more. And certainly nothing to do with what they touted at upfronts for more than a decade, à la the urban-legend around Home Box Office.As it turns out..:With shifting priorities of the promoters, that “sauce” became a “collateral” and hence: Kaput since past 2 years.
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend is sooo good. I know what they were doing but I wish they’d picked a different title because I always have to explain when I recommend it haha.
It’s brilliant and I almost didn’t watch it because of the title. Someone I trust had to convince me to give it a shot.
It’s at least 90% shows for people in high school.
They deserve a lot of credit in particular for how they handled Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, which drew truly horrific ratings and still got a full four-season run. I vaguely remember our old friend Emily VanDerWerff saying that after its second season, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend was the lowest rated show in the history of television to get a renewal. Would have been very easy and totally justifiable to quickly cut bait on that show.
At least over the last few years or so, the CW has been really good about supporting niche shows and giving satisfying send-offs and final seasons to low rated shows with big fan followings. I also loved Crazy Ex, and honestly I don’t think there’s been a year where the CW hasn’t had some hidden gems that make their way to the top of my list – recently, I’ve enjoyed In the Dark, Nancy Drew, All American and The 4400. They just occupy a place that no other network does, and I really hope this sale doesn’t change them too much. Aside from their atrocious streaming app.
Jane the Virgin was good too.
Ha!Vindication, once a-gain.What I’ve been posting for time-immemorial wherever and whenever relevant and as this article begrudgingly noted: My point about The CW®’s veritable USP got vindicated.And the priorities of the promoters started shifting, that “USP” had to become a “collateral” and hence: The bleed getting profusive since past 2+ years.No need to try hiding it by commissioning non-owned low-cost “unscripted” output like “Fool Us” or “Whose Line Is It..” adaptation, anymore.⏎And last but not the least.. It also reflects hole in the consistency of the HBO® max™( HBO®+“skinemax”) strategy of WarnerMedia® even as they try reassuring the indie/small distributors that they’re only looking for region-centric licensing arrangements than the global/worldwide ones the likes of amazon® prime™, NETFLIX® or even DISNEY+® — all in what-appears-to-be their zest to internationally expand their monopolising path, than keeping it just within Stateside.However.. With the control of “world’s largest open/tappable consumer market” aka SAARC( read India) already handed-over to their multibillionare industrialist-baron of a partner( whom even Mr Stephen Colbert was scared to mention his name on-tape!), I can’t see how much ViacomCBS® is bullish about international-first launch strategised( à la discovery+®) Paramount+®, I mean.. Fuck the branding since it’s more than clear they’re already gonna launch something called sky® (SHO)WTIME® with NBCUniversal®, upto the point of rebranding Paramount+® in the territories where it has already launched( reverse or beyond Stateside strategy?) and it would be the collective gateway of both its and Peacock®’s self-owned library, but their gateway in India: voot® select, has hardly caught-up with the catalogue of Paramount+®. Forget about theatrical-/non-exclusive titles such features & TV shows from linear operations, even some of the “Home of (SHO)WTIME” lineup is still stuck with rival streaming-services over there, yes, in January 2022. And this is only considering non-linear operations, in order to unduly respect the “TV is gonna be dead everywhere!” TP of international-press since time-immemorial. With the said baron’s recently-rumoured ambitions to enter the arena of sports-broadcasting as an expansion of his inorganically-acquired media Empire, in a territory with virtual duopoly between TWDC® & SPTV® — I’m not sure that unless ViacomCBS® regains control of the JV which erstwhile-VIACOM™( the 2nd iteration) willingly lost 11 years after its formation, that they can hope to profit off from much of Paramount+® commissions in the near-future. Even if it’s “made in Hollywood”, nevermind elsewhere. Can’t be a fan/stan but just like them..: Ever since NETFLIX® removed its “Original” ‘Star Trek®: Discovery™’ from the platform worldwide within a matter of mere hours-long notice period, voot® select still hasn’t managed to find sufficient excuses to add it. Even as they continue adding newer series/titles very timely, say.. ‘Why Women Kill®’!
Can you sum that up in a way that doesn’t hurt to read?
Fee?
Fi-foh-fum?
Which thesaurus you desire the extract from?
Have you been drinking the vanilla extract again?
More toxins than ethanol?
Not as polite as eh-thanol, the well-known Canadian spirit.
What a dangerous, stereotypical blend!°
I have become really fascinated with this person’s stroked-out writing style and the fact that they’ve commented on every thread under this article, without seeming too familiar with the avclub in general (example: Maureen vs AA). My bet is: very disillusioned CW employee? Run of the mill madman?
Meanwhile, I’m like:
All work
and no play
makes Ninja a
dull robot pirate…
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.
Beat me to it. His or her writing style is so bad, I just give up reading it which defeats his or her purpose.
you write like a CW screenwriter
Do you have a macro enabled or do you manually go in and add the “trademark” and “all rights reserved” symbols?
*PROVISIONAL:* Ain’t the “all rights reserved” is signified by the copyright-symbol, actually?
I didn’t read all that and assumed it was in there somewhere.I’m happy for you though. Or sorry that happened.
You sound quite light-headed, actually.Sure you aren’t having the “cultural” fun?
Projecting?
No, believe it or not( nothing to do with that IP whatsoever!) but..: I’ve never-ever visited cinemas or theaters.Not on my own dime, at the very least.
Also, why?
I mean, in the right hands, Supernatural spin-offs alone could make the network pretty darn profitable.But these things never end up in the right hands do they?
RIP – Wayward Sisters.
It blows my mind how many people on Twitter are shrieking to anyone who’ll listen that this is somehow karma for Supernatural, as if Supernatural was the only thing keeping afloat a network that, reportedly, has never actually been profitable.
As always, the moral is: even if you like the show itself, do not ever engage with Supernatural fandom.
out of the wreckage of Warner’s WB and Viacom’s UPNMy lasting memory of UPN (other than Enterprise, a show that kept stepping on its own private parts over and over until Manny Coto took over and righted the ship – no pun intended) is a TV grid on the pre-Univision Onion that had everything listed on UPN as something along the lines of “The Last Goddamn Thing Anyone Would Want to Watch.”
Right after “Everybody Love Shaniqua!”I miss the original Onion.
I hope the doesn’t affect the upcoming Babylon 5 reboot on CW.
Byron Allen should purchase the CW Network.
Home – Entertainment Studios Corporate
I did have to check to remind myself if Homeboys In Outer Space was a real thing.
Wasn’t Hee-Haw and G.L.O.W on this network?
The crossover of my dreams!
Yee Haw The Next Generation?
Is milkshake kid wearing a little hat?
Jughead gonna jughead.
Well he looks kinda grumpy about it
An article about the CW? Another excuse to plug Nancy Drew, which returns tonight and is the best show on television! I hope that, whatever form the CW takes, Nancy Drew will be able to live on.
If I was a network television executive and my last name was Pedowitz, I would… get a nom de plume.
bust it up.
TV is dead, long live TV!
WB/CBS learned from Disney/ABC’s TGIF to create a lineup IP then, when they’ve had a hit show in each time slot and day, sell it off or rebrand it. The
creation of The WB and UPN in the 90s to compete with the rise of cable shows, which then turned into The CW. It’s just time to make something else to compete with the streaming market. They will probably consolidate all the DC shows and past CW shows like Riverdale and Gilmore Girls to make a separate streaming service catered to those demographics.
“First, as many of you are aware, over the past year or so, this transformative time in our industry has led to a series of business activity across media and content companies.”
So… over the past year, businesses have done things? In all of recorded human history has there been any 12 month period that hasnt seen a series of business activities? WTF is this guy even talking about??
In whatever order I find them in on wikipedia, the CW shows that I’ve liked-loved/watched all the way through: All American, Roswell, New Mexico, In the Dark, Nancy Drew, 4400, Gossip Girl, The Vampire Diaries, Reign, The 100, Jane the Virgin, iZombie, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, Containment
…they’ve had some good shit.
This seems… not good for me getting another season of Nancy Drew.Aside from that, the rest of it I won’t miss if it goes away. The Viacom deal was great in that it helped the network air four seasons of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and Jane the Virgin, but they don’t have any shows like that anymore. The Warner superhero stuff will all go somewhere; even Legends of Tomorrow seems like it might have about even odds of landing on its feet somewhere, despite being as long in the tooth as it is.