Advertisement

Attack of the Show No More

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Grayson
User avatar
Outhouse Drafter
 
Posts: 7252
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 6 posts
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 9:34 am
Location: The Darkest Timeline
Title: The Intersect
Formerly: Sakie


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Grayson » Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:51 pm

The Nacireman wrote:I actually liked Singled Out, before Carmen Electra came around and ruined it.


100% this!
ImageImageImage

Advertisement

doombug
User avatar
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 12879
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:48 pm
Location: Holden, Ma


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby doombug » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:46 pm

Sakie wrote:
Yeah, thats a good point. I will still miss seeing them on my tv on a regular basis though. :-(

I actually feel bad and hope he's doing okay though.

Losing a job you just got and losing your girlfriend in a very short amount of time can not be doing anything good for that guy.
Image

Image

Herald
User avatar
WTF is this rank?
 
Posts: 11930
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Herald » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:13 pm

The Nacireman wrote:
You still don't get it. Disney is aimed at more family-friendly programming. XD is aimed at a younger (under 13-14) audience.

Movies like Thor and Iron man are aimed at an older audience. They don't fit the target demo. You ain't gonna see Captain America on there.


I get it more than you do.

1. Disney wouldn't have bought Marvel in the first place if it was THAT worried about everything the company makes being "family friendly". Not to mention having movie/TV imprints like Touchstone Pictures and Television, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures, Miramax... Or airing some questionable things on ABC FAMILY...

2. XD doesn't have to KEEP aiming at an under 13-14 audience. Like I said, this channel didn't even start out as "XD" to begin with! Not to mention that part of this very topic is about a network changing its supposed image!

3. I believe I mentioned editing before.
Let me mention it once more for you: EDITING.
It works wonders in making things "family friendly".

Fox's F/X network showed the R-rated "Matrix" just fine a few months ago.
All those curse words therein??
Let's just say there were a whole lotta "Shucks!" flying around!

Bottom line: The only thing stopping Disney from airing Iron Man, Thor, or whatever Marvel movie on XD is that it doesn't want to.

doombug
User avatar
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 12879
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:48 pm
Location: Holden, Ma


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby doombug » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:56 pm

For once I'm on Herald's side. :drunk
Image

Image

Juan Cena
User avatar
DANG!
 
Posts: 32294
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Nacirema
Title: The Lyrical Peyton Manning


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Juan Cena » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:59 pm

Herald wrote:
I get it more than you do.

1. Disney wouldn't have bought Marvel in the first place if it was THAT worried about everything the company makes being "family friendly". Not to mention having movie/TV imprints like Touchstone Pictures and Television, Hollywood Pictures, Caravan Pictures, Miramax... Or airing some questionable things on ABC FAMILY...


When's the last time you saw Pulp Fiction on the Disney Channel? Or reruns of Desperate Housewives? Thought so.

Disney Channel is aimed at kid-family fare. It's quite successful at doing that. There's no need to show Iron Man on there.

2. XD doesn't have to KEEP aiming at an under 13-14 audience. Like I said, this channel didn't even start out as "XD" to begin with! Not to mention that part of this very topic is about a network changing its supposed image!


As long as XD is profitable doing what it does it won't happen. It could happen in the future, but I doubt it would be anytime soon. More likely, If Disney and/or Marvel decided to launch a channel, it would probably created by flipping a lesser station or just simply creating a new one.


3. I believe I mentioned editing before.
Let me mention it once more for you: EDITING.
It works wonders in making things "family friendly".

Fox's F/X network showed the R-rated "Matrix" just fine a few months ago.
All those curse words therein??
Let's just say there were a whole lotta "Shucks!" flying around!


F/X is also not a kiddie network. And there's more than cussing that makes most Marvel material not-quite kiddy appropriate. Get the point here?



Bottom line: The only thing stopping Disney from airing Iron Man, Thor, or whatever Marvel movie on XD is that it doesn't want to.


And why doesn't it want to? Because Disney as a brand name is more family oriented (G-rated). It's why Disney created Hollywood and Touchtone because it needed to preserve it's Brand name, while producing the kind of not-quite family material like Splash or Down and Out in Beverly Hills, which were actually more profitable than the G-rated stuff the company had been putting out.

When I'm talking about a Marvel cable channel, I'm talking about something more oriented to the Marvel brand, which has a completely different audience that Disney does. More of something to compete with SyFy, if anything.
Image

"I have my heroes, but no one knows their names"
- Sons of the Desert

Strict31 wrote:I'm not sure that combining the nigh-uncontrollable power of LOLtron with the Nacireman is a good idea. Some years from now, when mankind is on the verge of extinction, we'll be able to look back and remember this moment, and say, "DANG."


http://www.shirtswithrandomtriangles.com/

Check out Christmas in Nacirema
http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh619160960893481469&shareImp=true#!/stations/play/619160960893481469

Chris
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 41306
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:10 pm
Title: Stuff Writer
Formerly: Chris


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Chris » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:02 pm

Something something Wally West, Wingman, something something
Image

Juan Cena
User avatar
DANG!
 
Posts: 32294
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Nacirema
Title: The Lyrical Peyton Manning


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Juan Cena » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:16 pm

doombug wrote:For once I'm on Herald's side. :drunk


Just to make clear, this is about a theoretical cable channel dedicated to all-Marvel material. This isn't just a flipping over. This is tearing doen a six-story building to build a skyscraper.

It makes more sense if it's gonna be a cable channel all (or mostly) Marvel if it's branded as being Marvel, and not as anything more closely associated with a Disney-centric network.
Image

"I have my heroes, but no one knows their names"
- Sons of the Desert

Strict31 wrote:I'm not sure that combining the nigh-uncontrollable power of LOLtron with the Nacireman is a good idea. Some years from now, when mankind is on the verge of extinction, we'll be able to look back and remember this moment, and say, "DANG."


http://www.shirtswithrandomtriangles.com/

Check out Christmas in Nacirema
http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh619160960893481469&shareImp=true#!/stations/play/619160960893481469

Herald
User avatar
WTF is this rank?
 
Posts: 11930
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Herald » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:21 pm

The Nacireman wrote:When's the last time you saw Pulp Fiction on the Disney Channel? Or reruns of Desperate Housewives? Thought so.

Disney Channel is aimed at kid-family fare.


It has run "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", which has the squeaky-clean, happy-go-lucky company mascot Mickey Mouse appearing in it, along with not only cussing, but this...

Image

...and this...

Image

...and, yes, HER!!! :smt007 :smt007 :smt007

Image

Now, THAT'S (family) Entertainment!! :P

It's quite successful at doing that. There's no need to show Iron Man on there.


Like I said, if they WANT to do it, they're doing it.

As long as XD is profitable doing what it does it won't happen.


I'm sure Toon Disney was pretty profitable, and yet, it is NO MORE!
It has CEASED to BE!!
It has EXPIRED and gone to meet its maker!!

F/X is also not a kiddie network.


And yet, "The Matrix" STILL got edited for family viewing!
Otherwise, why edit it at all??
"Shucks!!"

And there's more than cussing that makes most Marvel material not-quite kiddy appropriate.


You mean like... THIS??

Image

Disney's done it before, dude.
What else ya got?? :P

And why doesn't it want to? Because Disney as a brand name is more family oriented (G-rated). It's why Disney created Hollywood and Touchtone because it needed to preserve it's Brand name, while producing the kind of not-quite family material like Splash or Down and Out in Beverly Hills, which were actually more profitable than the G-rated stuff the company had been putting out.


It's why "Blank Check" -- a movie that WAS released under the Disney label -- has the main character's dad say that that the software on a computer “will teach you how to do everything but make love to a woman." DIRECT QUOTE.

It's why even the ANIMATED movies can get a PG rating! Especially when they have a song all about a purported "righteous man's" naked lust for a Gypsy girl, as her image dances suggestively in flame:



I repeat: Disney's done it before, dude.
What else ya got?? :P

When I'm talking about a Marvel cable channel, I'm talking about something more oriented to the Marvel brand, which has a completely different audience that Disney does. More of something to compete with SyFy, if anything.


So this hypothetical channel will churn out crappy SF films with horrible writing and laughable special effects?? That's gonna be a severe downgrade from the Avengers movie... :P

Juan Cena
User avatar
DANG!
 
Posts: 32294
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Nacirema
Title: The Lyrical Peyton Manning


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Juan Cena » Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:42 pm

Herald wrote:
It has run "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", which has the squeaky-clean, happy-go-lucky company mascot Mickey Mouse appearing in it, along with not only cussing, but this...

Image

...and this...

Image

...and, yes, HER!!! :smt007 :smt007 :smt007

Image

Now, THAT'S (family) Entertainment!! :P



Like I said, if they WANT to do it, they're doing it.


It's not about WANT, Herald. It's about NEED. The majority of Disney Channel content these days was created especially for the channel. It has no NEED to show Iron Man. And as long as it has the ability to pull another Hanna Montana or Phineas and Herb out of its hat, it won't.


As long as XD is profitable doing what it does it won't happen.


I'm sure Toon Disney was pretty profitable, and yet, it is NO MORE!
It has CEASED to BE!!
It has EXPIRED and gone to meet its maker!! [/quote]

And why was that? Because A) Disney wanted a network more aimed at boys, and B) Because it in all probably wasn't profitable enough as Toon Disney.

Trust me, Herald. Things are done more in business that are profit-oriented than just "WANTING" to do them.

F/X is also not a kiddie network.


And yet, "The Matrix" STILL got edited for family viewing!
Otherwise, why edit it at all??
"Shucks!!"

And there's more than cussing that makes most Marvel material not-quite kiddy appropriate.


You mean like... THIS??

Image

Disney's done it before, dude.
What else ya got?? :P

And why doesn't it want to? Because Disney as a brand name is more family oriented (G-rated). It's why Disney created Hollywood and Touchtone because it needed to preserve it's Brand name, while producing the kind of not-quite family material like Splash or Down and Out in Beverly Hills, which were actually more profitable than the G-rated stuff the company had been putting out.


It's why "Blank Check" -- a movie that WAS released under the Disney label -- has the main character's dad compare something to "making love to a woman". DIRECT QUOTE.

It's why even the ANIMATED movies can get a PG rating! Especially when they have a song all about a purported "righteous man's" naked lust for a Gypsy girl, as her image dances suggestively in flame:



I repeat: Disney's done it before, dude.
What else ya got?? :P [/quote]

When's the last time THAT was on Disney Channel? Thought so.


When I'm talking about a Marvel cable channel, I'm talking about something more oriented to the Marvel brand, which has a completely different audience that Disney does. More of something to compete with SyFy, if anything.


So this hypothetical channel will churn out crappy SF films with horrible writing and laughable special effects?? That's gonna be a severe downgrade from the Avengers movie... :P[/quote]

Not as long as it's not owned by NBC/Universal/Comcast. :lol:

Like I said, there is no financial need for Disney Channel to air something like the Iron Man movies. Especially since they've appeared on TV already.
Image

"I have my heroes, but no one knows their names"
- Sons of the Desert

Strict31 wrote:I'm not sure that combining the nigh-uncontrollable power of LOLtron with the Nacireman is a good idea. Some years from now, when mankind is on the verge of extinction, we'll be able to look back and remember this moment, and say, "DANG."


http://www.shirtswithrandomtriangles.com/

Check out Christmas in Nacirema
http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh619160960893481469&shareImp=true#!/stations/play/619160960893481469

Herald
User avatar
WTF is this rank?
 
Posts: 11930
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:47 pm
Title: Fun for the Whole Family!!


Online


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Herald » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:22 pm

The Nacireman wrote: It's not about WANT, Herald. It's about NEED. The majority of Disney Channel content these days was created especially for the channel. It has no NEED to show Iron Man. And as long as it has the ability to pull another Hanna Montana or Phineas and Herb out of its hat, it won't.


It's always about the WANT.
And the NEED is the same as any other network that would run the movie: RATINGS.

And why was that? Because A) Disney wanted a network more aimed at boys, and B) Because it in all probably wasn't profitable enough as Toon Disney.


A), yes. (And I'm glad you finally agree that it IS about what "Disney WANTED". 8))
B), no.

Trust me, Herald. Things are done more in business that are profit-oriented than just "WANTING" to do them.


Like, say, "WANT[ING] a network more aimed at boys"??
YOUR words, proving MY point. :-D

"Sometimes it's so easy, I'm ashamed of myself!" 8)

When's the last time THAT was on Disney Channel? Thought so.


It doesn't matter when the last time was.
What matters is that they HAVE done it.
The precedent is there.

Really, now: What ELSE ya got?? :P
I do hope THAT wasn't all there is...

Not as long as it's not owned by NBC/Universal/Comcast. :lol:


:lol:

Like I said, there is no financial need for Disney Channel to air something like the Iron Man movies. Especially since they've appeared on TV already.


That has never stopped them from rerunning everything else into oblivion...

Juan Cena
User avatar
DANG!
 
Posts: 32294
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Nacirema
Title: The Lyrical Peyton Manning


Re: Attack of the Show No More

Postby Juan Cena » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:07 am

Herald wrote:
It's always about the WANT.
And the NEED is the same as any other network that would run the movie: RATINGS.


There's a difference between RATINGS and profitability. Disney Channel used to have a limit on how many episodes were produced of a show no matter how high the ratings were or how popular it was, because, in theory production costs (i.e. actors' salaries) would escalate after that point.

The more expensive a show is, the less probability it's gonna stick around.



And why was that? Because A) Disney wanted a network more aimed at boys, and B) Because it in all probably wasn't profitable enough as Toon Disney.


A), yes. (And I'm glad you finally agree that it IS about what "Disney WANTED". 8))
B), no.



Trust me, Herald. Things are done more in business that are profit-oriented than just "WANTING" to do them.


Presumably because Toon Disney wasn't making as money as needed to warrant keeping it in the direction it was going.


They had a problem, they found a solution to the problem. It the problem wasn't there in the first place, there would have been no need to make changes.





I'm not even sure what you mean there.

Look, if Disney wanted to show any of the Marvel movies on Disney Channel, it would have done it by now. I'm not holding my breath that the Avengers movie will be showing up there either. It obviously doesn't make financial sense to deviate from the kid-oriented programming to warrant the costs of making it "family friendly" (you do know it costs money to do such things, don't you?").

The Need to be profitable is going to take precedent to do what you want to do.
Image

"I have my heroes, but no one knows their names"
- Sons of the Desert

Strict31 wrote:I'm not sure that combining the nigh-uncontrollable power of LOLtron with the Nacireman is a good idea. Some years from now, when mankind is on the verge of extinction, we'll be able to look back and remember this moment, and say, "DANG."


http://www.shirtswithrandomtriangles.com/

Check out Christmas in Nacirema
http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh619160960893481469&shareImp=true#!/stations/play/619160960893481469

leave a comment with facebook

Previous

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck] and 54 guests

Advertisement