#probably more wb critical | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

buffysummers · 1 year

Note

🔥 + Rory and her relationship with boys cause it's a mess.

Ahhh. I just need to preface this by saying that Rory is my favorite character. I love her so much! But that girl is a cheater, through and through.

She cheats on Dean with Jess, then cheats WITH Dean on his WIFE, then *sort of* cheats on Logan with Jess, and then cheats WITH Logan on his fiancée. The only person she doesn't cheat on is Jess, but who knows, if they had spent more time as a couple, maybe she would have.

Of course we can give Rory some grace since she is a teenager for a lot of this, but she's 32 in the revival and she's still cheating. So, like I said, that girl is a cheater.

Rather than discuss which ships I like more, I'd rather talk about Rory herself, since I don't really consider any of her relationships to be TOO toxic. Like, sure, there's some red flags and things are definitely far from perfect, but at the end of the day, it's a show and it's meant to entertain us. If everything was peaceful and happy all the time, we'd be bored.

Now, I hate to point fingers, but I think a lot of Rory's issues with men have to do with Lorelai. Lorelai, who basically made sex a taboo subject. A moment that Lorelai really fails Rory as a mother is when Rory opens up to her and tells her that she's considering having sex with Jess. Lorelai looks VISIBLY upset and disappointed when Rory is doing the right thing here. She's doing something that most kids don't do, she's opening up to her parent! And then there's the whole "I have the good kid" gloating moment when she overhears a conversation between Paris and Rory where Paris confesses she had sex and she isn't sure how she feels about it. Yes, Rory didn't hear her mom say this and some of this has to do with the WB just being kind of puritan about sex in general, but this moment perfectly encapsulates Lorelai's mindset, which puts a lot of pressure on Rory and probably confuses her.

Lorelai acts like Rory can talk to her about ANYTHING, but when it comes to boys, she behaves so terribly and there's no way this doesn't impact Rory and her decisions regarding men, especially considering how she places Lorelai on a pedestal. She even states in her graduation speech that all she's ever wanted to be was her mom. And that isn't necessarily a good thing, especially concerning Lorelai's relationship with men.

Lorelai runs away from her feelings, Rory sees this. Lorelai often juggles multiple men, Rory sees this. Lorelai had a kid at 16, Rory knows this. Lorelai basically turns sex into a bad thing, Rory sees this. It's understandable to want your child to make smart decisions and to be careful, but Lorelai does so much more than that and it's just... stifling! It isn't good parenting.

I'm taking the time to discuss this not only because, like I said earlier, it influences a lot of Rory's relationships with men, but also because I often see Rory attacked by the fandom, and rarely ever do I see Lorelai criticized. Lorelai is the adult here, not Rory. Rory can make mistakes sometimes, it isn't the end of the world. She doesn't deserve half the flack she gets from the fandom.

I think one of the most realistic aspects of Gilmore Girls is how MESSY Rory's love life is considering how she's raised. We often talk about how amazing it would be to have a mother-daughter relationship like Lorelai and Rory. How it would be so cool to be best friends with your mom, but you cannot be friends with your children. And Gilmore Girls shows the consequences of a mother trying to be best friends with her daughter.

This is why I love Rory so much. She's just sooo real. Everything down to her sense of entitlement... It all comes back to Lorelai.

So, Rory's love life is so messy but it's also extremely understandable and believable. I will add that my biggest frustration with Rory's love life is how her breakup with Jess is handled. It's unforgivable to me and just... not good writing. Thanks for the ask!

Send Me a 🔥+ a Topic, and I’ll Tell You My Honest Opinion About It

#answered #stydixa #gilmore girls #rory gilmore #I am slowly but surely making my way through these asks!

38 notes · View notes

crof-fwf · 9 months

Text

My thoughts around the "#GreenLightVolume10"

Well this is going to be a mix of some topics of which also goes hand in hand with the main topic about what I'm going to talk:

The Hashtag: "#GreenLightVolume10" have a truly impact when is about "Helping RWBY" ? Without the #,Is RWBY gonna be in a bad situation?

My quick answer for it would be: No, i dont think so, i know the hashtag made noice as a way to “encourage” but we know Vol10 will get the green lights, and why are you even thinking that RWBY is in a "red situation"?, seriously.

But for the Long answer im going to start:

Context:

The hashtag #GreenLightVolume10 was created in early April (approximately). It is unclear for me which tweet started it. I know that at least two Twitter users were among the pioneers who initiated the trend. The primary objective of the hashtag is to encourage Rooster Teeth to confirm the 10th volume or season of RWBY.

At the moment where the trend spread, a committed sensation was created to spread the hashtag so that it would be possible to continue with the RWBY story.

Many fans started to create numerous fanworks to this day, with a significant amount of new fan art featuring the included hashtag.

Where even the CRWBY members on the "RXT Austin 2023 panel" utilized that hashtag to promote it to the audience.

Source of the image.

Making in that way to impulse even more the support of the # which is still active.

And here is where i start to make a reflection about the way that # represent and if it really show us that: RWBY is in a real “critical moment”? As also in how the fandom is reacting about that and how probably RT/CRWBY are taking advantage of it.

And in my perception this topic involve 3 “main actors” what are related:

The fandom

CRWBY

Rooster Teeth

The Fandom:

In my perspective the fandom has fed this # given the context about the fear that RWBY will be cancelled, this being a fear since Rooster Teeth became a subsidiary of Warner Bros, adding to the fact that the WB itself has been canceling projects lately. This news It has created fear to the Fandom, which caused the motivation to promote RWBY in order to attract as many new people as possible with or without the use of the # (Leaving the possibility that in more radical cases this could spam, both in comments that are or are not associated with RWBY).

And the point what I’m trying to reach is what the fandom itself is in a state of Gaslighting themselves due to that constant and uncertain fear of “RWBY being cancel” leading to the compromise of promoting that hashtag more and more.

CRWBY

CRWBY at the moment of seeing the reaction of the fanbase, they decided to support and encourage to continuing promoting the #.

From examples im in completely aware is Kerry by saying to continuing the #

Since I cannot find the post that directly mentions "continued support" other than the one seen in "RXT Austin 2023 panel", I can at least confirm that the mention was made. (Where I allude to a possible post by Kerry; in case he made more mentions)

Well, and another example what we all know is of the “RXT Austin 2023 panel”.

These shows of support show that (from a fan's point of view) the CRWBY is capitalizing on the feeling of: "The people have spoken", to show "pressure” on Rooster Teeth, and so the fan feels that the CRWBY is also playing this role of "saving RWBY" and continuing to support and promote the # because they are "backed" by the same CRWBY.

Rooster Teeth

Talking about Rooster Teeth is undoubtedly something "complex" given the controversies the company has been involved in, but in this case I will limit myself to mentioning the following. From my point of view, RT can be anything (in terms of its controversies) when it comes to being a bad company, but I attest that RT is not stupid, knowing that it depends on money to continue to exist and not go bankrupt, it needs to keep its main sources of income afloat, with RWBY providing it with the most funding.

Where I have the expectation (and my comprehension) on how RT distributes the financial source, then I have the idea that Rooster should give more importance to those projects that bring them more profit, so it could lead to a hypothetical situation where other RT projects or shows have to be on a long hiatus or, worst case scenario, end up being "canceled" so that RT saves its funds to invest in its most profitable projects

Also i have to add in how recently Rooster Teeth generated money and incomes based in 4 situations:

Bumbleby Merch:

Thanks to the fact that the shippers "starved" through this time step until their confirmation in V9. Finishing by ecstatic the community and adding the fact that BB shippers are a large majority in the fandom, being the perfect opportunity to present the "Official BB merch" a few weeks after its confirmation. The merchandise in price aspects, I consider it (on a personal level) a bit overpriced…

But hey, "if it's official BB merch, then it's worth buying, right?"…

And, unsurprisingly, by the end of the day, the merchandise had sold out.

This image was taken in 06/04/2023

And that’s the merch what were release in the few weeks, and not forget the addition of new ones and finally the merch that was promoted in “RXT Austin 2023 panel”.

Source

Where the merch which was sold out was there Wall Scroll.

Picture taked in 14/08/2023

So this is how I want to express that one of the factors in making money is the number of "BB shippers" showing their support for CRWBY (and indirectly Rooster Teeth,"But hey, who is the owner of the shop like the one that makes and distributes BB merchandise?)

Gains given with the distribution by Crunchy Roll

I want to clarify what in this point is more speculative from my point of view.

Their distribution in the platform of “Crunchy Roll” has contributed with the amount of 15.5K reviews of 4.7. Where the comments what i saw in the reviews were in general positives.

Making look RWBY at least something “fine”…

And i remember something else related to it and i wanna talk about it quickly: Is Crunchy Roll gonna acquired RWBY?. Honestly I’m doubt because i don’t see it beneficial for RT to give the show by the same reason in how RWBY benefits RT. But still Crunchy Roll gonna be the distributor of the series.

The tiny gains with the Crossover with DC

Well, in this case, the film that was released I consider "50/50", taking into account that it received a mixture of opinions about what revolves around the film, so I can't confirm if it managed to obtain a good income, nor can I confirm if the film turned into a disaster. As I also add the fact that "RedBox" premiered the film before the official date, which may have affected the film's revenue.

Well, maybe we have to wait for the second part and see the “final results”

Gains given by the “RXT Austin 2023 panel”

The convention of Rooster Teeth which started on 7-9 of July, was also a good source of income for the company, where in this case: Selling merchandise of RWBY (Also by the fact that RWBY being celebrated for its 10th anniversary) oh and a few BB merchandise what i made mention in the first point.

Note: With the confirmation of more “Camp Camp” and “RvB” makes me doubt: "If your best project is in danger, how can you give the green light to 2 other projects? 10?". I really want to believe that RT has this "control" over the management of investment in its projects.

And I want to clarify something!

I am NOT supporting or defending RT!. Although I know that I argue that RT knows how to manage its projects and how it should be in a "stable" situation. I am NOT putting aside all the controversy surrounding RT, honestly RT can "fuck off", but as I said at the beginning of the post, RT is not stupid enough to not give attention to their best "gold mines". ", because without money, RT collapses.

And I add at the last moment: I doubt that RWBY will become independent of RT due to the fact that some members of the CRWBY are associated with RT (leaving aside if they knew about or covered up these controversies) and also how RT benefits the members of the CRWBY.

Everything mentioned was to indicate that RT must be "playing his cards right" in order not to lose RWBY, and NOT for showing support or something related.

My conclusion:

With all of the above, I hope to make my point clear and show why I think the "purpose" of using #GreenLightVolume10 has been somewhat exaggerated by pointing out how it has been exaggerated for something that is very likely to happen.

Also, I’m not trying to stop you from promoting it with your artworks, comments, or etc. My intention is to point out how scandalised the purpose of the # has become, to the point of having to cling to it as if the series depends on how active the # is. I don't deny that the # is a kind of "support" or "reminder" that people want more. But really, so much noise has been made to promote the #, for a thing that depends on the budget that RT has to give it to RWBY and thus generate their "investment".

In summary:

The fandom deludes itself into believing that RWBY is "in danger of not continuing with Vol10" (as if RT didn't make the necessary profits). Add to this that CRWBY, along with RT, are using the # trend as a way to save the ad section, as this # works as a "hype train" for them as a good marketing medium. Making a lot of noise so that in the end always the vol. 10 got his green light like that.

Leaving "#GreenLightVolume10" on the brink of becoming a media circus…

- F0under

Extra:

If (RWBY) has a good ending, at least it was worth it .

But if it has a bad ending, there is nothing you can say or regret, because you have already invested in it, they have done their thing, and you just have to eat the ending you were so excited about because you wanted it to go on.

- Ady.

#CROF: RWBY #rwde #anti rooster teeth #CROF

7 notes · View notes

blackandwhlteaesthetlc · 2 years

Note

If you want to keep track of sales.

https://variety.com/2022/film/box-office/dont-worry-darling-box-office-1235380469/

Anon, you read my mind! Thank you 🙏🏽

I just sent an article with an early projection that included the preview night sales to @twopoppies. Based on that? It’s probably gonna do fine opening weekend. Not seeing any sold out showings in my area across multiple theaters and I’m in a bigger city so I expected a bit more there. But I’m guessing it’s going to do well enough to satisfy Olivia and whoever else invested their money into it.

That said, I don’t see it breaking any records or gaining any traction after this first week just based off of the poor word of mouth from general audiences and the terrible critical reception. The only people that will maybe go to multiple showings are “Harries” and, despite what Olivia and WB banked on, they can’t carry the success of the film on their own. 🤷🏻‍♀️

#dwd #ticket sales #beyonndddd ready to move on from this movie #warner bros #wb

29 notes · View notes

uefb · 1 year

Text

A Love Letter to Newt Scamander’s Autism™ and a Plea to Those Continually Gloating About the ‘Failure’ of the FB Franchise

(this is stream-of-consciousness really, forgive me)

Look. I…dislike…JKR as much as the next politically active gender/queer who was raised on Harry Potter and subsequently spent their 20s raging against the binary and tearing down the system.

But look—

I’m also autistic.

So I can’t pretend to be able to celebrate the potential crash of the first fantasy franchise/series (well, any franchise, really!) to star an empathetic, autistic hero just because I hate her.

The lady has enough money to pave Europe, enough money to buy anyone’s votes—hell, enough money to probably repurchase the entire bloody (pun intended) British empire—

And she frankly has enough money to attempt to destroy trans folks and trans women’s lives whether or not FB continues.

FB is not the root of the problem.

JKR and the increasingly inflammatory political and economic and social moments we keep hurtling through are the problem.

So when I think back on that lonely, autodidactic, quiet, gender nonconforming, gentle, awkward, morally driven (and sometimes-accidentally-in-trouble) eleven-year-old version of me—

That little nerd who clung to the safety of Hermione (as close to a relatable fictional character as I would ever find for decades) like a life raft in the godforsaken sea of adolescence—

Well.

When I think how much Newt Scamander would have meant to that little dork then,

And how much he must mean to so many kids now (let alone adults)…?

I just can’t find it in my heart to purely wish ill on every single one of JKR’s endeavors. Or to celebrate JKR’s failure specifically regarding Fantastic Beasts.

(So maybe Cursed Child can die in a fire, and —yes — JKR’s isms and antisemitisms and absolute crock can—

Well.

You get the idea.)

And maybe it’s the Hufflepuff in me—masked so often by my more ADHD-forward Gryffindor traits—but I just can’t take joy in an atypical, kind, adult autistic character—an unusual hero, in fact!—being [potentially] cancelled when I know it not only hurts me, but so so many others. It’s not joyous to me that people are losing something dear to them, when it’s not the media itself that’s damning but the woman who dreamed it into existence. (Though so much of the good of FB was built by the producers and artists and actors—it was built out by them like a wood-elf in a well-tended garden. The core of it—the trellis, perhaps—was provided by she-who-must-not-be-named, but all that delicate work in between? the moments of worldbuilding, the nuance of character and culture and blah blah blah? they wove the intricacies of the fabric and fashioned the clothes to hang in her closet.)

But I’ve mixed my metaphors and I digress.

What I mean to say is this:

A franchise like FB being cancelled is nuanced and complicated—especially since WB is gonna milk the Wizarding World for all it’s worth even if they do drop FB. This is a multifaceted issue spanning individual, political, capitalistic, societal, etc etc overlapping and contradictory levels, and we should treat it that way, not the way I’ve seen it circulated in posts—just laughing about how JKR had it coming and skimming over all the rest.

Like yes, duh.

Of course she did.

Those of us who grew up on HP rejected her for the very same reasons we loved HP in the first place.

But use your critical thinking skills.

The world is bigger than JKR—art and media have implications and impacts outside of their origin. And, thus, implications for supporting or enjoying something exist on multiple levels that must sometimes be carefully measured and interrogated, even if individually or factionally we come to our own different—and perhaps opposite—conclusions.

So i’m just proposing: maybe we should reconsider taking joy in Fantastic Beasts failure when FB is about so much more than just JKRs considerable sins —

When so many people have seen in Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamander the first character who truly acts like them, moves like them, speaks like them—seems to see the world like them!—for the first time in their lives.

Because yes: JKR’s views and horrific anti-trans and—frankly—anti-anti-anti-everything campaigning are personal, but so is what Newt has come to represent.

Words can’t describe that for me. What he means, from an autistic perspective.

Anyway.

I only request that you place your thinking in the complex context it deserves.

Also, please don’t viciously @ me. I’m open to nuanced conversation, should I have the word-energy to engage—though I have been teetering on the edge of a shutdown for days—but I’m not open to being torn apart for loving quality autistic representation, and for simply wishing I could have more of that character and that content in the world. To not always have to be the one to push for it. To not always have to be the one to write my own representation, to seek it out, to demand I’m worth space and consideration as a reader and consumer with intersectional identities—

It’s complicated.

But I’m tired.

And potentially losing Newt really isn’t funny to me.

#will I regret posting this later?#probably #do my words make sense right now?#not entirely - my brain is fried #do I have enough self control to leave this in drafts?#absolutely not #uefb rambles #fantastic beasts and where to find them #fantastic beasts #newt scamander #autistic newt scamander #also apparently this is my antiJKR proNewt tag now -#and jesus fk jkr’s bullshit but god bless newt scamander & god bless eddie redmayne for giving us the character he did #wizarding world #harry potter #my stuff #actually autistic #also i hope you like my ted talk gif

16 notes · View notes

talkingharrystyles · 2 years

Note

Don’t forget that dwd will be in theatres only 45 days and then streaming which means less money. Also this fact means that WB don’t believe in it’s success so they won’t be doing huge promo. Honestly, I believe that they agreed to make 45 day theatre realise because Olivia has in her contract that she as well as other producers will get % from box office but nothing from streaming so WB have to execute this part because I remember how WB had big problems in the beginning of the pandemic when they decided to send their big premiers directly to streaming which meant that directors and actors would not get their % of box office of their movies. That’s why Nolan left WB, they payed 10 million to both Gal Gadot and Wonder Women director as a compensation. So you see the consequences? They probably didn’t want another scandal, and we know Olivia loves them, so they agreed to show dwd in theatres for a limited time because why would you do that with a good project with big names in it? Hence why Olivia edits trailers and posters and does all the promo basically by herself. I personally don’t expect a lot from dwd, probably $50-$80 million in total, definitely not what she wanted.

Also remember that for a movie to be considered a success it has to do more than break even. It Has to make three times its budget. The budget for don’t worry darling was $40 million that means Olivia‘s gonna have to make $120 million for this movie to be considered a success. Breaking even will only payback on her brothers for how much they spent on this film but for it to make a profit it obviously Hass to make more than that. And Olivia needs it to do really well for her to get her backend deal. I don’t think this movie is going to make even $100 million. So if this movie doesn’t deal well we all know Olivia is fucked. Not to mention the rollout for this movie hasn’t been good. The movies coming out in two months and we’ve heard barely anything and the studio doesn’t even look like they’re putting any type of promotion out there. It was submitted for the venice film festival but who knows if it’s even going to be excepted. Harry has made his stance on this movie known since he has planned a bunch of concert around the time that the movie comes out so he’s going to be doing very minimal press also Florence Pugh just started filming Dune and who knows if she’s going to have the time to be travelling around the world to do press for this movie. Kiki Lane also is shooting a new movie at the moment so who knows if she’s gonna be able to promote this movie either. Altogether it just doesn’t look good for her and it’s almost like Warner Bros. is sabotaging Olivia which I don’t have an issue with. But yeah this movie definitely isn’t going to do well in the box office, the critics are going to hate it and Olivia‘s career has taken such a hit. The fact that she lost Perfect, She keeps bugging such small and insignificant rolls in the films, also I heard spiderwomen was scrapped because somebody wants to focus their attention on to other things in the spiderUniverse. And I truly can’t wait to peoples reaction so don’t worry darling because I know it’s not going to be good

👀👀👀

20 notes · View notes

freudensteins-monster · 2 years

Text

As a long time fan of the comics I really enjoyed The Sandman adaptation. I'm not great at being overly critical of the media I consume, so that maybe doesn't mean much, but from the opposite end, my sister, who’s never read the comics and wasn’t too interested watching the show with me, got interested quickly and ended up really liking it too.

Some more specific but not exactly spoilery stuff below the cut.

I wasn't really bothered by most of the plot changes, with the exception of Joanna Constantine. I don't understand the need for the genderbent take on John Constantine (or why they had to pronounce it ConstanTINE and not ConstanTEEN, that annoyed the shit out of me) - why couldn't they just bring in Matt Ryan (she says as a fan of his Constantine tv show and his animated Justice League Dark outings)? The show was done by Netflix and the WB, and DC is owned by the WB, so not seeing a copyright/studio conflict there...

I think Tom Sturridge was a really great Dream and I loved all of Dream’s scenes with Lucienne (though i don’t understand the need for feminising their name from the comics Lucien).

I didn't exactly love Despair's new look but I'm pretty sure, as a fat chick with numerous issues, that having her being shown as a obese, naked, and sometimes grotesque chick as per the comics probably would have been a touch upsetting for me.

And while I will admit to being a bit annoyed when I first learnt that Death wasn't going to be the pale goth chick with that iconic eye make-up I must have drawn a thousand times back in the day, Kirby Howell-Baptiste was perfect 🖤 (and it took me way too long to realise she was Simone from the Good Place🤦)

#the sandman #the sandman spoilers #not really #but just in case #sandman #sandman spoilers

15 notes · View notes

x5red · 2 years

Text

Was Supergirl really cancelled by CBS?

When Supergirl switched networks from CBS to The CW, it had a major impact on the show. Not only did it bring with it a swanky new DEO office (devoid of bat droppings, apparently), and a more modest scale to the Girl of Steel’s adventures, but it also saw the departure of one of the show’s most loved characters, Cat Grant.

It has largely been assumed that the switch was a result of CBS cancelling the show due to falling ratings, but a deep dive into the comments made by network executives at the time, as well as some background into how Arrowverse (and other CW) shows worked financially, tells a more interesting story.

Using contemporary reported quotes and information, this post tries to lift the lid on the events behind this distant, but highly important, part of the Supergirl show’s history. It’s a complicated tale of rejection, taxes, licenses, and a profit model that favoured quantity above anything else.

Read on to find out more...

Why did Supergirl jump network?

Before we tackle the big question, we need to puncture a few myths and misconceptions. Misconception number one is that Warner Bros. wanted Supergirl to be a CBS show from the start. Misconception number two is that low ratings were the main reason the show switched network.

When Supergirl debuted on CBS it was seen by many as WB’s attempt to break its superhero properties onto a major US tv network. But in reality CBS was actually WB’s second choice network. Supergirl only ended up on CBS because head of The CW, Mark Pedowitz, had already turned the show down. Speaking at a Television Critics Association event in 2015, Slash Film quoted Pedowitz giving this explanation:

"Last summer Flash had not been on the air yet," Pedowitz said. "We had Arrow and Flash and we were not planning to do another DC character. Supergirl was talked about by Warner Brothers to us. Because we weren't planning to do another DC character at that time, they took it out and did the right thing. I hope they're a great success."

CBS had good reason to take Supergirl, even after it had been turned down by what many might consider a more suitable network. It was well known at the time that CBS’s audience was haemorrhaging young viewers. As The Guardian put it in their piece that covered the announcement of Supergirl being added to CBS’s schedules:

CBS has been the most-watched network in the country for years, but now it is seeing its ratings in the coveted 18-to-49 year-old demographic wither as shows such as The Walking Dead and Empire eat away at their lead.

Even though Supergirl was a valuable asset to CBS in its bid to win back younger viewers, as we now know, after only one season the show switched to become a CW show anyway. Many assume that falling ratings had resulted in a cancellation, but seemingly this was not the case.

While the show had indeed dropped in the ratings, that drop was relative to an exceptionally high opening, and apparently the Girl of Steel still had enough appeal to justify a second season at CBS.

Glenn Gellar, CBS President of Entertainment at the time, commented on the show at the 2016 Television Critics Association press tour, as reported by Slash Film:

“I didn’t say Supergirl didn’t work for us. It actually worked very well. It averaged over 10 million viewers a week. But at the end of the day, we really looked at the situation. We said, ‘How can we both win from this?’ We co-own The CW so this was an opportunity for both CBS and Warner Bros. to really benefit from the success of the show. They produce it. We co-own the network and there’s nothing to say that if we hadn’t made the right deal with the CW that we wouldn’t have taken it back on Monday nights or another time.”

Additionally Leslie Moonves, who was head of CBS at the time, also commented on the show’s network change at a press event, as reported by Deadline:

“If they didn’t go there, we would’ve probably taken it back,” Moonves said.

And, as if to reinforce Moonves’ comments, the same Deadline piece also contains further commentary from Glenn Gellar:

“It’s a win-win since we co-own the CW,” he said. “We worked out great deal. And who would say we wouldn’t have picked it up had it not gone to the CW.”

The Deadline piece then goes on to explain why the drop in ratings was not necessarily a killer blow for the fledgling superheroine show:

Despite the fact that its numbers tapered off significantly after a strong start, Supergirl, aided by a solid DVR play, averaged a 2.4 rating among adults 18-49 in a competitive time slot, ranking as the No. 1 new CBS drama and No. 4 new network series overall (behind only Blindspot, Life In Pieces and Quantico) in the demo this season. It is CBS’ youngest-skewing new drama and averaged nearly 10 million viewers.

These details show that Supergirl still had a valid appeal for CBS, and therefore a real possibility of a second season. But Warner Bros. decided to move the series to The CW rather than await a CBS renewal/cancellation decision. This begs the obvious question: why didn’t WB fight to keep the show on the higher rated network?

The answer to that most likely lies in understanding how each company profits from Supergirl -- specifically the different motivations driving both CBS and Warner Bros., and the outside factors that influenced their decisions.

Okay, so why did Supergirl jump network?

The first thing we have to understand is that there was a difference in priorities between Warner Bros., the producer, and CBS, the broadcaster.

WB ultimately made and owned the Supergirl show (via Berlanti Productions), and therefore had direct benefits from future sales to streaming services, syndication, foreign broadcasters, merchandising, DVD and Blu-ray sales, and so forth. From WB’s point of view, success for a show like Supergirl is generating enough episodes and enough brand recognition to make the series attractive for as many of those second-run markets as possible, for as many years into the future as possible.

A key to this success is the so-called 100 episode rule, which is the most appealing minimum episode count for these future markets. The 100 episode figure was historically based on packaging sufficient episodes for a show to be screened daily in daytime syndication without frequent repeats, although in recent times that desired target has dropped below 90 episodes.

Meanwhile CBS, as Supergirl’s broadcast network, had different priorities.

Without a direct financial stake in syndication, merchandising, box-sets, etc. CBS was limited to simply paying Warner Bros. a fee (a license) to screen the show, then reaping profits from advertising placed against each broadcast. And as advertising rates are based on the popularity of a show, audience ratings matter a lot. However high ratings alone are not the whole story. A network may want to attract a particular audience demographic who are more desirable to potential advertisers. So it is all about delivering the right kind of audience that advertisers are eager to reach.

The second thing we need to understand is that tv productions, even in places like California, are subject to tax breaks from local government.

In recent decades locations like Vancouver in Canada have used currency exchange rates and aggressive tax incentives to lure tv productions away from Hollywood. When lower-budget cable television began to challenge the big networks in the 1980s and 90s, the monopoly that Los Angeles and New York enjoyed over television drama production started to vanish, as drama shows began using cheaper Canadian (and other) locations as stand-ins for America. By the time Supergirl was beginning production, even the mighty Los Angeles had been reduced to using tax incentives to tempt big productions into spending their lucrative budgets in and around the city.

Now that we understand the television landscape at the time, we are in a better position to consider specifically what actually happened to Supergirl.

Great, so why exactly did Supergirl jump network then?

First, a caveat: of course without being in the room when the decision was made, we can’t ever know for absolute certain what happened. But we can still piece together a very credible account of the likely motives behind the network switch using the aforementioned quotes from the parties involved plus some other public information.

One factor that was surely important was the bombshell news the show got around the time they wrapped on season one. Supergirl was a large television production that made major demands on things like costumes, props, sets, stunts, etc. With all those people being employed, the show’s producers must have felt that they had a strong case for a tax credit from the California Film Commission. But, if that was the case, then they were proved wrong.

At the end of its first year in Los Angeles, it was reported that Supergirl had failed to secure the all-important tax credit. At the time, Deadline covered it like so:

Supergirl was one of the biggest network shows to commit to filming in California in the past couple of years, so the expectation was that it would be among those awarded a tax credit by the California Film Commission, which changed its methodology to give rebates based on productions’ economic impact. But Supergirl‘s application was not approved, which likely affected the show’s budget projections.

Without the credit, Warner Bros. would be tasked with making a glossy show for a major network, but on a much tighter budget than season one. CBS was a major network that delivered a lot of brand prestige for Supergirl, but all of that would be worth little to Warner Bros. if the show was cancelled well before its syndication episode quota. Assuming CBS green lit a second season, if budget cuts resulted in lower quality, and even lower ratings, then the show may easily fail to get a third or a fourth year at CBS.

For WB, staying on CBS may have looked like too big a gamble going forward. Supergirl was likely to need to switch networks sooner or later to fulfil its quota, and that switch of network would also require a switch of shooting locations to Vancouver (where production would be much cheaper and incentives easier.) So WB presumably thought better that it be sooner, while the series still had a solid reputation and fair ratings.

But why would the shift to The CW help? Wouldn’t the move just postpone the inevitable, if ratings continued to slide?

To understand why this is not necessarily the case, we need to consider the relationship Warner Bros. has with The CW, and why it doesn’t care so much about ratings on that network.

When a network screens a show from a studio, it pays a license to the studio for the privilege. But when said network and studio are part of the same parent corporation, then that license is effectively redundant, as it would amount to just moving money around inside a single organisation. This creates an interesting relationship between the studio and the network, the upshot of which is that the network no longer has to focus quite so much on ratings.

A 2016 article by Forbes described how Warner Bros. viewed The CW at that point in television history:

Unlike the big four of CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox, The CW is not a network trying to make money on a grand scale off its live viewership. Rather, it was created as a vessel for 1st-run domestic broadcast. Why is that important? Because without somewhere to air first, there’s no way for television studios to achieve the syndication friendly number of 88-episodes necessary for profitable 2nd-tier syndication deals. The CW is a network created with the singular goal of getting the shows of its parent company to syndication qualifying numbers. That’s why most of its programming still runs traditional 22-episode seasons and why there’s never been outside programming from the likes of 20th Century Fox, NBCUniversal and ABC Studios featured on it.

Warner Bros. considered The CW as a shop window -- a way to promote a show, build brand recognition, and rack up a portfolio of episodes, ready for when the real profits can be made later on. This perhaps explains why they took the Supergirl project to The CW in the first place, and it also explains why they quickly switched it to The CW after season one, when ratings and tax breaks conspired to threaten the desirable syndication friendly episode count if the show had stayed at CBS.

So, we can now pull together all the publicly available information, add just a tiny bit of educated guesswork, and arrive at the likely story behind why Supergirl leapt (in a single bound) from CBS to The CW. It probably went something like this...

Warner Bros. wanted to make a Supergirl show, but needed to get to sufficient episodes for a viable syndication package. The natural home for this would be The CW, but that network was at the time yet to launch its second Arrowverse show (The Flash), and was uncertain about how committed it wanted to be to the superhero genre. So WB went to CBS, knowing that the network needed something to attract a younger audience. This was a gamble, but if the show could work on CBS then WB would get its desired episode count plus stellar brand prestige thanks to the broadcaster’s larger profile. But the loss of the tax credit presumably shifted the odds.

Even though Supergirl’s ratings in desirable age groups had been reasonable enough to make renewal at CBS an option, the network’s economic model meant it would be sensitive to future drops in ratings. Meanwhile, at The CW, the success of The Flash season one had meant that the network was now more confident about superheroes. Looking at all of these factors, Warner Bros. presumably decided to play safe and pull the show from CBS, offering it to The CW, were it was far more likely to run for several seasons uninterrupted.

So there you go. Although ratings likely did play a small part, there were other important factors in play too. Notably the declined tax credit, and The CW’s hesitancy about taking on too many superhero shows at that time (which is ironic when you consider how deeply committed it later became to the genre.) But the important thing is that CBS never actually cancelled Supergirl, it appears -- the reporting at the time strongly suggests WB never even gave them the chance.

#supergirl #melissabenoist #supergirlcw #dccomics #arrowverse #superhero #superheroine

16 notes · View notes

rhtakeuchi · 1 year

Text

I need to get this off my chest. I see so many folks jumping on social media and blasting folks with a sort of false moral superiority in a world that really doesn’t work that way.

Chic-Fil-A is terrible, sure, but let’s not forget there are a lot of brands you probably aren’t boycotting that are just as horrible. From 2017-2018, AT&T, UPS, Comcast, Home Depot, General Electric, FedEx, UBS, Verizon, and Pfizer all donated about or over a million USD each to anti-LGBTQ politicians (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/06/24/dont-let-that-rainbow-logo-fool-you-these-corporations-donated-millions-to-anti-gay-politicians/?sh=4eca033e14a6)

McDonald’s, Walmart, and Amazon have donated hundreds of thousands to politicians opposed to LGBTQ rights. (https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-walmart-mcdonalds-companies-show-pride-donated-anti-lgbtq-politicians-2021-6?amp)

Let’s not forget all the many subsidiaries these huge companies have, as well as the many licenses they provide or pay for. You have to decide where to draw the line, but it’s likely even your favorite companies are licensing something from someone terrible.

For example, if you want to boycott J. K. Rowling effectively, you would need to pressure Warner Brothers, the licensor for the Wizarding World, and stop them from granting licenses that give royalties to J. K. Rowling. That means no longer supporting the companies who pay WB for that license — like Lego, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, NBCUniversal (who pays massive amounts through theme park licenses), Target, and so many more.

In Lego’s 2020 statement about their Harry Potter sets, they say they pay WB for the license and don’t deal with J. K. Rowling directly, but that is the same as Hogwarts Legacy and all other licensed goods. Everything goes through WB, not Rowling (unless you bought stuff directly through Pottermore back when that was a thing). Buying Lego, HP or otherwise, goes toward the payment of the various licenses for each franchise they buy into. But Lego also has some really good initiatives, clearly says they don’t agree with Rowling, and otherwise support a lot of people, so that’s a pickle. I won’t fault you either way. It’s no secret that I’m a VIP with a massive amount of points right now.

It’s much easier to boycott things you weren’t going to buy or use anyway. I know this well. Most of the companies listed in the first part of this post don’t even have holdings in Japan for me to need to deal with them. I know I have the privilege of saying I can boycott them. I know folks reading this might not have that privilege, just as I can’t avoid Japanese companies tied to abhorrent political views here because that would be all of them.

It’s easy for some folks to get on Twitter (a social media platform owned by someone who has also said very troubling things) or Facebook (which has maintained a problematic naming policy that has primarily affected minorities) and boycott a game you weren’t going to play anyway (that isn’t even that unique and is so buggy they can’t release it for half the platforms) while still buying from companies that still pay WB for that same license.

But my point here is not to criticize folks who make selective stands. My point is we’re all making selective stands. I will judge my friends based on their actual views and not their ability/privilege to afford to boycott billionaire-owned mega-corporations or franchises.

Back in 2018, Warner Brothers came after a Harry Potter themed fitness charity group I belonged to since 2014. They forced our group to change our name, then they still weren’t satisfied and launched a lawsuit in 2020. The group was forced to disband last year. It was devastating to deal with both Rowling’s views and the attacks from WB. We proudly supported the Trevor project and other LGBTQ organizations over our many years, with many of us identifying as members of the LGBTQ community. One of our mottos was “I solemnly swear that I’m up to #somuchgood.” We were a community that used our love of our shared fandom to inspire folks to be active both in a health sense and charity sense. We raised millions of dollars for various charities, which is I guess why WB attacked us so strongly over shirts and medals we gave out with the donations. (https://amanda-farr.medium.com/potterhead-running-club-takes-wizarding-boys-fanthrophy-online-community-to-the-next-level-a8ab55519872)

I won’t be vilifying my community for the fandom that brought us together and that we shared and that inspired us to do good. I know the good we actually did. I know all the various clothing, bandage, and food drives we did on top of the charity walks/runs. I know the good things we are still inspired to do in less massive ways. I also know we have done and will do more than a lot of folks ever will do. (https://racery.com/blog/2016/07/06/hogwarts-running-club-virtual-race-for-the-trevor-project-wow/)

I would hope that in our selective stands, we are mindful that while it might be easy for some to give up a brand or franchise, there are good folks and entire communities of good folks who still band together because of them. Just do what you can to do good in this world.

2 notes · View notes

mermaidsirennikita · 2 years

Note

i don't get what exactly she's trying to accomplish? is she gonna promote the movie at all or will she keep using dune part 2 as a excuse? even though timothee (who is definitely needed more on set) is doing promo for bones & all. sure social media is on her side for now but she's already getting dragged. her saying that women fighting on and off camera is inspiring when she supports jd is peak white feminism.

THE SANDWORM HIMSELF IS OUT TO PROMOTE

Lol the thing is that as much as I don't like Timothee as an actor and find the fascination with him to be, I don't know, maybe a harbinger of the end times, he does seem to be professional, so like. Yeah. He would make it work for his schedule even if he did have to shoot Dune, because the movie he's promoting is a genuine contender for critical darlinghood from a director he has a good collaborative relationship with, who is a name. If not for this haze of venom and drama, I think DWD probably would've had a different critical reaction. Not glowing; but probably polarizing, around that 60% mark where some people are into it and some people go "bro, too much". The way things are promoted do matter, especially in today's world, where so many film critics are less about authentic critique and more about creating a meme or an otherwise viral moment.

And I think that what Timothee and the other young up and comers get, which apparently Florence doesn't, is that their fates and fame... it's not sealed. You don't get to have these types of shenanigans without a care over whether or not someone will cast you before you've got an Oscar in the bag ideally, and a good number of vehicles centered primarily around you for good measure. Julia Roberts could do Aloe Vera and still be America's Sweetheart, in part yes because of the lack of virality at that time, but also because... Nobody cared, she was so solidified by then. Florence's come up is very recent. Midsommar and Little Women were a few years ago. She still hasn't won an Oscar (yet). She took a legit year off, and there was a whole pandemic where the movies weren't a huge priority right after her breakout. There are girls waiting in the wings. Again I say, Zendaya would NEVER--and Zendaya cannot, because she's not white, even though she's much more bankable and tried than Florence.

I'll also add... This is one of two movies that WB pushed to release this year due to their financial troubles, and it's not gonna do what they want now. It's gonna fall on Olivia, but like, the movie industry is misogynistic and they're gonna blame the other woman too. I promise.

I don't know if she's gonna promote this more than she already has, but damn, I genuinely hope there is absolutely nothing that people who aren't happy with her at the moment can leak about her, because.... If I was Olivia Wilde and I had some incriminating texts or vids or whatever to share... Then the smart thing would be to see how the movie is turning out with critics, and strike back after. I'm not saying she should, at all. But....... I don't know. I just don't think this was a good long term move for Florence, and I've gotta think that part of it occurred because she's so online. And the more you're online as a celebrity, the more room there is for skeletons to come out. Everyone should be like Chris Pine with his flip phone.

6 notes · View notes

selfieignite · 2 years

Note

I am almost done watching and I cannot tell you how much I loved every second of it. The dynamic is so perfect. It’s such a bummer this got cancelled ): truly a waste of potential. Im thankful to you showing up on my dash regardless. Would you happen to know why it got cut short? I have an inkling it might have to do with racism

Yay! It makes me happy that people are discovering Selfie and watching it for the first time :) Yes, it was really disappointing that the show couldn’t continue and the cast deserved better. I have a list why it was canceled. Sorry this is long lol. I also recommend checking out the Selfie Wikipedia about the cancellation!

Possible reasons why Selfie (2014) got canceled:

1) The title: Selfie. Some people really hated the name even though it’s still used in everyday life. And it was around the same time when the song #Selfie by The Chainsmokers was released. I don’t think the general public liked being reminded of vanity, so they ended up judging the show pretty quickly. Even a news interviewer said when he heard the title, he wouldn’t watch a show called that. If it had a different name or alluded to My Fair Lady/Pygmalion, maybe it might have had a better chance? Also, “selfie” is hard to search for online, so having a more unique name would have been a plus.

2) Weak pilot and trailer. There was a lot of criticism from critics and the audience for the first episode and trailer. Things like the vomit scene, how social media was portrayed, and Eliza's narcissistic behavior were considered off-putting.

3) Bad time slot and no strong lead-in show. It was on the same time as big TV shows like The Voice and NCIS, which aired on different networks. Also, it didn’t have a strong lead-in show to retain the previous audience. Manhattan Love Story aired right before it, but that was also canceled a few weeks earlier. If something popular like Modern Family aired before Selfie, more people would have stuck around to watch the series.

4) Not enough (good) marketing? Some people speculated that there wasn’t enough promotion. I’ve seen posters about it, but that didn’t really tell you what the show was about.

And the combination of the first four reasons led to the following:

5) Low ratings. Unfortunately, not enough people were tuning in after the first episode and ratings kept dropping. It was canceled after the 7th episode and that was when the episodes became progressively better, but by then it was too late. It aired on the ABC network and the ABC President at the time, Paul Lee, said it was a "very good show,” but decisions had to be made due to losing money from advertisers. While money is an issue, I personally don't think he was a big fan. It's because he favored other shows by getting them another season like Galavant, Agent Carter, and American Crime even though their ratings were declining. Selfie didn’t even get to finish its first season. It was originally supposed to be around 26 episodes.

6) Other networks didn’t pick up the show and/or Warner Brothers didn’t bother to shop the show to other networks. A lot of fans at the time launched a fan campaign to reach out to Hulu (where the rest of the remaining episodes aired), Netflix, etc. to pick up the show, but no avail. Warner Brothers produced the show, but they probably didn’t push for the show as hard as they could have either. AND Selfie is still not officially streaming anymore either (except in Australia) because of the WB.

7) Racism. That might have been part of it, but it’s hard to tell how much especially with behind the scenes and the several reasons above would overshadow it. But racism definitely played a part during the casting process since the production wanted a white Englishman to play Henry in the first place and was reluctant to cast John Cho. Out of the main cast, he was also the last person to be announced. Times are slowly changing, but we could always have more romantic Asian male leads on American TV.

8) It wasn’t given enough time and was on the wrong network. This also ties in with 5) low ratings, but ABC didn’t give it a chance to grow a larger audience especially when the episodes were improving. I don’t think ABC was the right network for this show. If it came out now on streaming or maybe a few years after Guardians of the Galaxy and Jumanji (where Karen Gillan played Nebula and Ruby Roundhouse), it might have done better. The kicker is that some of the critics changed their minds about the show right when it was canceled. They definitely contributed to Selfie’s demise with the early bad reviews.

That’s all I can think of for now. Overall, the show was poorly managed. Great cast and writing if people could see past the first episode.

Thanks for reading this far! lol

#selfie abc #selfie tv show #ask #john cho #karen gillan #selfie cancellation #save selfie #selfie 2014 #henry higgs #eliza dooley #paper drop #gif #abc selfie #abcselfie #selfieabc #my edit

5 notes · View notes

thevindicativevordan · 2 years

Note

Do you think a Superman film can be a financial success in today's film world? The last 20 years have been the Golden Age of superhero film. Virtually all such films have done well. Some very well. The few exceptions include SR and MOS both of which significantly underperformed and lost money. Now WBD seems to be backing away from doing a standalone Superman. Do audiences want another Superman film? I'm not seeing it among my friends which disappoints me.

If the rumors of Cavill's return are true then I'm sure a Superman solo movie is on the way. He didn't hold out on them for five years to fold now and just do cameos, he's getting that movie as the price for his return. It's unsurprising that the more casual audiences might not desire a Superman movie, DC's brand is in lousy shape right now, and the last Superman movies he was in were terrible. Additionally many probably have no clue what a Superman movie could be about since they already used the two Rogues everyone knows about, Zod and Lex.

I think you'd be surprised how quickly many would get on board for a new Superman movie which pits him against Brainiac or Mongul however. Show people something new, something that challenges their preconceptions on what Superman has to offer, and I think they'd give Supes another shot. If nothing else S&L and MAWS will hopefully continue to rebuild Superman's brand, building some momentum and audience interest in his Mythos again in time for the next movie which would be ready by 2025 at the earliest.

One note though: A MoS critic I may be, but that movie actually performed well financially. As I recall it used product placement to recoup it's budget before it even hit theaters, it was an underperformer because WB was expecting it to be a critical darling and make The Dark Knight tier money right off the bat. If it had lost money the way GL did, they would have dropped it like they did Superman Returns, not given Snyder the go ahead to build a shared universe off of it.

#superman #superman movie #henry cavill

5 notes · View notes

inkofamethyst · 2 years

Text

November 6, 2022

[two nights ago] So it’s currently 2am and I’m in a... a state. Not like a bad one, I’m not having an anxious episode (I do got the nerves runnin through me though! that hasn’t changed!), but I’ve been stressed all week because of exams and other things and I suddenly feel just a little bit freer. I mean, I was in bed most of the day after my morning exam as a result of lady pains (it would be really convenient to have, like, ADS accommodations specifically for my First Days (though I think the exam went fine actually, possibly better than my other two despite the limited studying)), so I am suddenly filled with energy and I randomly decided to work on the One More Soul to the Call string quartet test arrangement (because even though Paradise is my top priority for next semester, transcribing it is a horrible experience (and even though Love Psalm is probably my second priority, it would involve transcribing drums which I don’t feel like doing (in other words, I needed a win tonight))), and I’m kind of in love with it??? I’ll send it to my cello-friend to see if it actually has potential or if it just sounds like noise, but it’s really coming along, I think.

[today] So I finished the first draft after a total worktime of about six hours. I made some (a lot of) creative liberties, and I’ve handed it off to be scrutinized (by a friend bc I’m not all that confident in it). It’s not super vocally interesting.. all the notes are within the range of a single octave, there’s no major jumps or anything, I sort of just wanted to see if I could do the adaptation. Love Psalm is (seemingly) more vocally interesting, but a string quartet adaptation might be harder, so I may try a straight transcription for it later.

Critical Role episodes 36-38 have been fantastic. 36, total fanservice, was grinning the whole time. 37, a dungeon crawl, but I was fully engaged throughout, even in the battle (there have been some really interesting battles this campaign) which doesn’t always happen. 38, joy followed by a harrowing twist. C3 is really really good. I don’t want to pick a favorite of the campaigns because I love them all for different reasons, but this one is really strong. It might be partly because it’s drawing on aspects of the world that longtime fans recognize (from C1 and C2 and mini-campaigns). It feels like a major culmination, and I think we’re leading into something big (that’s one thing about the end of C2--the final boss battle was fine, the ending was good, but the stakes did not seem very high because the threat was so isolated, unlike the VM end battles which affected the world).

Speaking of podcasts and culminations, WtNV feels like it’s doing that really slow build thing again which I love. Where they slowly incorporate more and more storyline into the episodes to culminate in an epic climax. No spoilers, but Salmon Burger was a good episode. AGH I love Night Vale so much.

Today I’m thankful for a good weekend. I went to the chamber concert for the orchestra with my photo-friend, and my cello-friend’s group was so so good. Easily the best performance there. We went out for dinner after which was nice. Today, rehearsal went well, and I made a really solid beef stroganoff for the first time ever. Lastly, I’ve mentioned before that I like watching the little WB animated DC movies because they’re relatively quick movies and easily digestible. Most of them are just okay (like Superman vs The Elite which tried too hard and missed the mark on its social commentary, or Injustice: Gods Among Us which had so much potential to be good but the climax fell flat), some are pretty bad, and every once in a while you come across one that’s a bit of a gem. I’ve watched two this weekend, and I think Superman: Unbound was one of those gems. I just really like the Clark/Lois dynamic. Superman as a hero just makes me happy :) wholesome lil farm boy :)

I have a lot to do tomorrow. I have to catch up on a few assignments for ecoanth, send out a bunch of emails, and start on those applications. My next exam isn’t for about a month, but I really don’t want to wait until the last minute again, especially since that one will determine whether I need to take the final for that class or not.

But for now, an “early” bedtime. Goodnight :)

1 note · View note