Hello everyone and welcome to another WRT! A less busy week for us but we`ve still got enough juicy stories to discuss with you. This week I`m (MK) joined by SpoilerTV writers: Kolin (KL), Milo (MI), Ami (AG), Jamie (JC), Rachel (RW), Joey (JH), Lisa (LM), Jessica (JN) & Yon (SJ). As always feel free to join the discussion in the comment section down below
1. The Charmed Reboot stirred up quite some trouble and actor Ser Darius Blain is getting into heavy arguments with the Twitter peops. How much should an actor be involved in Twitter wars? Where is the line? And how often should it be crossed?
KL: I have no idea what this is about and I don't care to research. But in general, I think a professional getting into Twitter wars with fans as a bit asinine. Most of these people on Twitter stirring things up are trolls living in their mom's basement looking for their five seconds of fame. If it is a real issue that needs a response, then fine, but most of the time, just don't.
AG: I’ve seen actors be both silent and very outspoken and, to me personally, I think it’s best that they try not to fuel the fire. 9 times out of 10, a Twitter war is sparked because some fan with an internet connection isn’t happy and wants to tell the whole world about it. Actors should do their best to not get involved, and really to just keep to themselves. If it’s a genuine issue, then yeah – go for it, defend yourself. But if it’s just haters trolling then silence is the best option.
JH: I haven't really been keeping up on everything with this, but in general, I just think Twitter wars are a bit juvenile. I get needing to rant. Do it all you want. But when you @ someone in your rant, you just start unnecessary drama. I think an actor, or any professional for that matter, should generally refrain from getting involved in these things unless they are defending against a potentially damaging attack, or responding to false claims with solely factual information.
JL: I haven’t been keeping up to date on the latest Twitter wars, but I don’t think it’s necessarily wise for actors and actresses to engage that way with fans over social media. Everyone is going to have a different opinion about something, and with actors and actresses responding, it just adds fuel to the fire. People seem to get so bent out of shape over every little thing on the internet nowadays that get involved with them doesn’t do anyone any good. If actors and actresses want to use Twitter to promote their shows that’s fine, but engaging in fan arguments doesn’t do anyone any favors.
SJ: Usually I think it's best for actors to stay out of this stuff. Use their social media to promote their show/movie, take part in the live tweeting & leave all this other nonsense behind, because sometimes when they get involved in these Twitter wars they're only fanning the flame. In this case, however, I don't think it's as much the actors getting involved in heavy arguments, as it is their notifications being filled with people verbally abusing & harassing them, so they have no option but to answer back & ask people to calm down. The whole situation revolving around this reboot is beyond ridiculous. The original show, just like Buffy, was good back in the day, but let's not act like it was the be all and end all of the things. Elements of the show were problematic. The later seasons particularly were not good at all. Sure fans can be protective of something they know & love, I myself fall into this category with many shows, but you have to know the line.
2. Supernatural is delivering a new take on Crossovers with a Scooby Doo induced episode. What is your take on this decision? And should other shows try this sort of crossovers out?
KL: Won't have a full verdict on the Superdoo crossover until the episode airs, but it definitely has created a lot of positive buzzes and it works within the craziness of this show. Should other shows try these type of crossovers? I don't think a lot of series has the longevity or the level of writing to pull off a crossover like this. The veteran CW series may have lost some of its lusters, but it still pulls out gems here and there that awards those of us hardcore fans who have stuck around and reminds us how there is no other show like Supernatural.
AG: So I thought this was an April’s Fools prank when I first heard about this, but no, it is an actual, legit episode. I think Supernatural is one of those rare occurrences where a show has been on the air for so long now that they’ve just run out of ideas, and at this point, are just spit-balling. I love that it's so old, that its just making fun of itself at this point. Maybe let the comedic shows and interested actors do cartoon crossovers but leave the dramas and horrors to what they do best.
JC: Personally I'm not a fan of this upcoming crossover. Mostly because it's a filler episode. I prefer the ones where the storyline actually progresses. Also, as a vidder, these cartoon episodes are the worst. I was never a huge Scooby fan either (the wrong generation I think), maybe I would've been more excited if it was a crossover with something I watched.
JH: I've been so excited for ScoobyNatural since it was first announced! This is a perfect crossover setup for Supernatural due to the tone they've set up for over a decade. I think any show should be open to the possibility of crazy spin-off ideas, but they also need to make sure they can execute the ideas organically in their show. I haven't gotten around to seeing it, but the Sleepy Hollow/Bones crossover that happened was a very strange idea too and is probably an example of a time the writers/producers should have said: "you know, maybe this isn't the best idea."
SJ: I don't watch Supernatural and never have, but considering how overloaded the audience is with tv shows, doing these special types of crossovers may end up becoming the norm in the future. You need to have something about your show that is unique & keeps the fans excited, especially when you've been on the air for so long. Cross-network crossovers I don't think will ever happen, unfortunately, but I don't see the problem with two shows of different genres on a network crossing over & just having fun with it.
3. No Mass Renewals! YET. The networks are very careful with their renewal decisions so far, picking up only the occasional show for the upcoming season. What reason lies behind and do you prefer it this way?
KL: I would imagine many networks to be a bit more cautious after the fan backlash with Timeless, among other shows. They don't want to jump the gun and then be forced to uncancel a show. I prefer neither here nor there, don't care when, as long as my favorite shows get renewed (please renew The Exorcist, Fox!).
MI: Maybe the networks are taking their time to see what improves over time? Streaming and catchup viewings are playing a key role now and it's something that the networks have to take into account so that probably explains the delayed response. It also depends on the new shows that they have to take into consideration as well and how many pilots they want to order. Fan backlash is definitely something that they have to take into consideration now as well which makes it a harder job for the networks.
AG: After what happened with Timeless and Sense8, I can imagine a lot of networks will be hesitating with cancellations and renewals. They don’t want to cancel shows prematurely and cause a massive backlash, but at the same time, they don’t want to keep churning out money to keep a show running if no one’s watching. How the fans respond affects everything these days, and how they respond is usually unpredictable, so I can’t imagine their jobs to be easy right now (RENEW BROOKLYN-99 THANKS!).
JC: Clearly the reason is that they are trying to torture us It is easier to keep track of when the renewals aren't all at once. And I only have a few shows I care enough about to be worried (AoS, B99). So I don't mind the wait YET. But I would like to know before the finales start airing.
RW: Honestly, I just feel like I'm being tortured aha. I just want to know if the shows I like are going to come back in September, or if I should start getting invested in other shows LOL...
JH: I think networks are just trying to be more careful with their shows now. There have been several shows that were renewed in the midst of a stellar performing season, only to have the ratings dip towards the end and bomb in the second season. They're probably erring more on the side of better safe than sorry now in an age where getting viewers to tune in weekly is a struggle. This also gives them more time to consider their potential pilots and see exactly how much space they have in their schedules. If this is their strategy, I'm very happy with it. Hopefully, it'll give us a bit more quality control when it comes to our TV offerings and we'll never again have to deal with a Son of Zorn situation.
LM: I really wonder if networks are getting ready to really shake things up and get mostly rid of the 22/23 episode model. It might make sense to unveil the entire slate at the May upfronts - and really, that's where we traditionally get the call on where the ax is going to fall anyway. I'm expected a few more trickles and then a tsunami at Upfronts.
LN: So far, networks have only picked up a few shows, and I suspect we’ll start seeing mass renews around the end of April and beginning of May, just as networks are announcing with pilots are going to be picked up. While the CW picked up most of their shows early last year, I’m guessing the switching to six days of programming may be a reason why they’re waiting; they could still be figuring some of the scheduling out. As for the other networks, I think they’re just being more cautious this year and taking into account fandoms and streaming and how a series does internationally. After the backlash NBC got by briefly canceling “Timeless,” I think the networks are just trying to avoid criticism by prematurely canceling a series. I also think the networks are waiting to see how some of the pilots do before they make a final decision.
SJ: I think there's a couple of reasons for this. A lot of the shows on TV right now are quite old, and therefore cast contracts might be up this year which will mean going back to the negotiating table. That can be quite a lengthy process and require a lot of back & forth, so in those cases, it's best to leave renewals until the last minute to really weigh up the options. Then there's the fact there are so many shows on TV & you have to weigh up the ratings + DVR or whatever it's called to see if a show is worth renewing, because Networks have carried over A LOT of dead wood these past few years. There are also pilots currently being filmed & waiting for the first reactions from those to see what works + what doesn't & that impacts on the possible schedules for next year (if you renew 10 dramas ahead of time, you may only have room for 5 pilots which means tough decisions). Upfronts are also a massive part of the TV calendar & become somewhat redundant if Networks have already renewed 90% of their programming because it's easy to decipher from what's left what will be going. And of course, axing shows prematurely & then having to go back on that. Very much hoping we don't have to deal with that this year. I would hope that Networks see the 22/23 eps a year model is somewhat dying out & decide to reduce episode orders across the board, and as a consequence have more pilot shows make it to air, but that's probably wishful thinking.
Hope you've enjoyed this edition and join the discussion in the comment section. Till next week. . .
