Last Man Standing [FOX]
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
"normal Americans"? I didn't know that most "normal Americans" were big time cocaine dealers who avoided a life-sentence by ratting out all of their accomplices.
If you think this was politically motivated, then please explain how he got cast in the first place? (It's not like his positions have changed.)
The show sucked, it was about as interesting (to me) as watching Larry the Cable Guy, just one repetitive theme and joke over and over. Imagine King of Queens and dumb it down threefold.
If you think this was politically motivated, then please explain how he got cast in the first place? (It's not like his positions have changed.)
The show sucked, it was about as interesting (to me) as watching Larry the Cable Guy, just one repetitive theme and joke over and over. Imagine King of Queens and dumb it down threefold.
@hollywood FWIW i never watched it either so i was surprised about the backlash and petitions. Got kind of buried in that Friday night slot.
8.1 million Americans disagree. Geeze dude some times people who have bad past grow up and things change them and they can become great human beings. I would love to see all the dirt in your past then disqualify any post you make because of it. Grow up Hollywood or get a gripe on those that have differing views.
Show was funny as shit and had great rating for a Friday night show. Might want to research shit before making a blanket uneducated statement.
Show was funny as shit and had great rating for a Friday night show. Might want to research shit before making a blanket uneducated statement.
Last edited:
I've never watched this show, but what's the logic behind creating a show that apparently has a more conservative audience then turning around and canceling it after SIX seasons.
Why did ABC create it to begin with? Why did they let it run 6 seasons? Seems odd that if they were taking a shot at conservatives they would have even allowed it to air to begin with, let alone for 6 seasons.
EDIT - Guess those paragraphs are pretty redundant, but I'm leaving them!
Why did ABC create it to begin with? Why did they let it run 6 seasons? Seems odd that if they were taking a shot at conservatives they would have even allowed it to air to begin with, let alone for 6 seasons.
EDIT - Guess those paragraphs are pretty redundant, but I'm leaving them!
Your defensiveness comes across as weakness.
To many Americans, the characters portrayed in the series align a little more closely to their real life than, say, modern family or the big bang theory.
I'd never heard of the show, but I question whether it was actually "conservative." One of the most liberal people I've ever met (who LOATHES Trump) is pretty angry that the show was cancelled. Yes, I know that's only anecdotal evidence.
Perhaps the audience for the show merely tended to be more conservative based on the demographic that watched the show - older (as @AC2017 said) and more likely to be someone who has kids.
Perhaps the audience for the show merely tended to be more conservative based on the demographic that watched the show - older (as @AC2017 said) and more likely to be someone who has kids.
Here's the thing, from a business perspective.... you need to bear in mind that there's two players here, the network who basically only "rents" the show (and sometimes gets to participate in some profit-sharing) and the Production Company who actually owns the show, but who is out of pocket for all expenses. As the network's share of the audience continues to drop due to all the competition from the cable networks, the amount they can afford to pay has also dropped considerably.
Many times in the last few years, the cost of producing a show has started to exceed what a network can, or is willing, to pay significantly. Unless the Network has a really sweet back-end deal, they would rather stick some "reality" show or low-cost production type show in their line-up because it is far more profitable. If a show is in it's 3rd to 4th year, sometimes the production company will lower its "rental" fee to a network to make certain they get to the magic number of 100+ episodes in the can. Once you hit 100+ then you can "strip" the show and put it into syndication.
From some of the industry publications I've read, it appears that ABC is cutting back on its comedies and changing it's Friday night line-up completely. I seriously doubt that this has anything whatsoever to do with politics. It was #13/22 shows on ABC and most of the shows below it are cancelled or likely to be cancelled (in fact, ABC's lineup is so week several of the shows ranking above are on the chopping block). If it were airing on NBC, it would only be 3 from the bottom of that networks shows and on CBS it would be 20/26. (With 2 broke girls averaging a 1.5 rating, while LMS had a 1.1 rating.) The audience for the show had declined somewhere between 8% to 12% over the last year (depending upon the source.)
Bottom line, many shows are now basically pricing themselves out of the market and I would expect that we will start to see many of the shows centered around a name-brand star to likewise be cancelled or for those stars having to accept concessions on salaries and perks.
Things have drastically changed over the last 35 yrs or so in regard to network television. Remember this: MASH's finale ('83) drew over 125 Million viewers, Cheers finale ('93) drew some 89.5 million viewers, Seinfeld's finale ('98) got 76.3 million, while by 2005 the networks numbers had dropped to the point that the highest rated show that year (the finale of Everyone Loves Raymond), only drew 38.3 million viewers. Today, it's not uncommon for even the highest rated shows on the networks to be lucky to draw 6-8 million viewers.
Even ballyhooed non-network shows like Walking Dead were only pulling in around 10-11 million last season. By contrast, LMS's audience (total viewers) was about 7 million on the average last season. And I'll guarantee you that Tim Allen was making more per episode than the top 3 or 4 cast members of WD combined. (They have a notoriously tight budget.) Looked it up, Allen was making a little less than $250,000 per episode while Andrew Lincoln was making less than $90,000 and he's the highest paid actor on the show.
Many times in the last few years, the cost of producing a show has started to exceed what a network can, or is willing, to pay significantly. Unless the Network has a really sweet back-end deal, they would rather stick some "reality" show or low-cost production type show in their line-up because it is far more profitable. If a show is in it's 3rd to 4th year, sometimes the production company will lower its "rental" fee to a network to make certain they get to the magic number of 100+ episodes in the can. Once you hit 100+ then you can "strip" the show and put it into syndication.
From some of the industry publications I've read, it appears that ABC is cutting back on its comedies and changing it's Friday night line-up completely. I seriously doubt that this has anything whatsoever to do with politics. It was #13/22 shows on ABC and most of the shows below it are cancelled or likely to be cancelled (in fact, ABC's lineup is so week several of the shows ranking above are on the chopping block). If it were airing on NBC, it would only be 3 from the bottom of that networks shows and on CBS it would be 20/26. (With 2 broke girls averaging a 1.5 rating, while LMS had a 1.1 rating.) The audience for the show had declined somewhere between 8% to 12% over the last year (depending upon the source.)
Bottom line, many shows are now basically pricing themselves out of the market and I would expect that we will start to see many of the shows centered around a name-brand star to likewise be cancelled or for those stars having to accept concessions on salaries and perks.
Things have drastically changed over the last 35 yrs or so in regard to network television. Remember this: MASH's finale ('83) drew over 125 Million viewers, Cheers finale ('93) drew some 89.5 million viewers, Seinfeld's finale ('98) got 76.3 million, while by 2005 the networks numbers had dropped to the point that the highest rated show that year (the finale of Everyone Loves Raymond), only drew 38.3 million viewers. Today, it's not uncommon for even the highest rated shows on the networks to be lucky to draw 6-8 million viewers.
Even ballyhooed non-network shows like Walking Dead were only pulling in around 10-11 million last season. By contrast, LMS's audience (total viewers) was about 7 million on the average last season. And I'll guarantee you that Tim Allen was making more per episode than the top 3 or 4 cast members of WD combined. (They have a notoriously tight budget.) Looked it up, Allen was making a little less than $250,000 per episode while Andrew Lincoln was making less than $90,000 and he's the highest paid actor on the show.
ABC didn't create it and doesn't own the backside (syndication, Netflix, etc) rights. The money they make off it is essentially the advertising revenue airing it generates minus what they pay the production company.
For shows created by the network, they are responsible for funding production up front, but don't pay licensing fees and then get the revenue from ad sells and all the backside rights.
As for why six seasons....six seasons is at least 100 episodes (22 episodes a season in a typical network sitcom). 100 episodes make it a much more viable for back end syndication and other sells. It's kind of an industry standard. It is not unheard of for a Network to agree to renew a show they don't own, but negotiate a portion of the back end rights in exchange for helping get them over the 100 episode syndication hump. Network has some leverage to do that as they episode numbers approach 75-80. Once they use that leverage, get a bit of the back end, and get it over the 100 episode hump, they then have an incentive to see it go into syndication as quickly and as soon as possible...I.e. Canceling it.
I'm not definitively claiming politics had nothing to with it, but the financials make lots of sense even with political considerations.
I don't watch TV for comedy that aligns with my real life. I watch for funny. Tim Allen isn't. Jim Parson is. Barney Fife or Archie Bunker did align with my life but they were funny.
There nothing defensive to pointing out Tim Allen is a convicted felon. Its just fact. Does that align with your life?
If the shows that good it will get pick up by another network.
The other thing to bear in mind is the longer these things run the more expensive they get. If want to run for ten years you better deliver the Cheers, Friends, Big Band Theory ratings. This show has never even been able to deliver consistent top 50 ratings.
Sorry conservative crybabies the world isn't out to get you. Its called the free enterprise system. Its a bitch when you actually have to deal wit it.
LOL, you know when you have to tell someone you're ignoring them you're actually doing just the opposite. Its a very common point of confusion among eight year old girls.
The normal americans comment was directed at the characters the actors are playing, not the actors themselves, but don't let that stop you from ranting about Allen's past.
The main reason the show was cancelled is due to the original production agreement with the network, which required the network to move the production in house starting with season six.
While I don't believe it had much, if anything to do with the cancellation of this show, you are just ignorant if you think there isn't discrimination against conservatives in Hollywood, just as there is against various other groups as well.
The main reason the show was cancelled is due to the original production agreement with the network, which required the network to move the production in house starting with season six.
While I don't believe it had much, if anything to do with the cancellation of this show, you are just ignorant if you think there isn't discrimination against conservatives in Hollywood, just as there is against various other groups as well.
gipraw - "...you are just ignorant if you think there isn't discrimination against conservatives in Hollywood..."
Gipraw, would you mind detailing your work for any entertainment company in Hollywood? Perhaps a movie studio, a production company, a record company, a performer, etc.? Just so we can gauge how much actual experience you may have in this area? Have you ever lived in Los Angeles and been surrounded by the movie/entertainment industry? Certainly, you must have some first hand knowledge to make that statement right?
Because I'm someone who has done work for the industry and picked up quite a bit of knowledge during my decade in L.A. doing legal work for some companies I can name (because it's public record) like Warner Bros and many others I can't because of client confidentiality.
Undoubtedly, in my experience the majority of "talent" (in front of the camera) and most of the "artistic" side of things like Directors, art direction, set decoration, etc. does very much tend towards the liberal, left. But the notion that the actual studios (or the execs running them), the producers running the production companies, the Talent Agencies and many of the behind the scenes crew are liberal is simply not true.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of decisions by the true "money" people in Hollywood are only motivated by one political factor and as such they are all members of the "Green Party.*" *As in "Greenbacks." They don't give a crap whether you're a fascist, a communists or a member of the Prohibitionist Party, if you can make money for them, they'll hire you.
Gipraw, would you mind detailing your work for any entertainment company in Hollywood? Perhaps a movie studio, a production company, a record company, a performer, etc.? Just so we can gauge how much actual experience you may have in this area? Have you ever lived in Los Angeles and been surrounded by the movie/entertainment industry? Certainly, you must have some first hand knowledge to make that statement right?
Because I'm someone who has done work for the industry and picked up quite a bit of knowledge during my decade in L.A. doing legal work for some companies I can name (because it's public record) like Warner Bros and many others I can't because of client confidentiality.
Undoubtedly, in my experience the majority of "talent" (in front of the camera) and most of the "artistic" side of things like Directors, art direction, set decoration, etc. does very much tend towards the liberal, left. But the notion that the actual studios (or the execs running them), the producers running the production companies, the Talent Agencies and many of the behind the scenes crew are liberal is simply not true.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of decisions by the true "money" people in Hollywood are only motivated by one political factor and as such they are all members of the "Green Party.*" *As in "Greenbacks." They don't give a crap whether you're a fascist, a communists or a member of the Prohibitionist Party, if you can make money for them, they'll hire you.
I had this confused with Last Man on Earth and had lost faith in those of you who thought it was good.
