I was wondering Do You Think Lifetime Will put UM back on again?

I really hope so! I don't own any of the DVDs, and always looked to Lifetime to get my UM fix for the day. I don't know what I will do if they decide to pull it for good. :(

Bottom line is the show will be back at some stage in the game if they still have the rights to air it. "Lifetime" is notorious for yanking "Unsolved Mysteries" to make room for their "flavor of the moment show" and then when that show tanks the go back to old reliable Robert Stack.

The only ratings grabbers they have on their entire network now is "The Golden Girls" and "Desperate Housewives" (one of which as one forum member noted probably can't be shown during the day - I know, Blanche can get a little too risque for the kiddies but thats neither here nor there)

Unsolved Mysteries has a core audience and still garners ratings for the network despite it basically being a "dead brand". Unless the contract for the program has expired or whatnot, UM will return to "Lifetime" at some stage in the game.

If you are really concerned about it, write them a letter, be polite and clear about your wish to see the show return to the lineup in a regular timeslot. Don't bother wasting an email with them as they seem to carry less weight then the letter you hand address and put a postage stamp on.

DD

PS: One way to be certain if UM is no longer part of the "Lifetime family" is if this page (http://www.lifetimetv.com/shows/unsolved/index.html) is yanked from the site entirely. It isn't updated, but if the contract has expiried and was not renewed, I think Cosgrove and Co. will insist any references to the show be taken off the "Lifetime" site.

"Lifetime" is notorious for yanking "Unsolved Mysteries" to make room for their "flavor of the moment show" and then when that show tanks the go back to old reliable Robert Stack.

What goes around comes around.

I hope they do! In the past they have taken it off and put it back on. Hopefully they will do it again this time around.

Yes.

The favorite is bigtime yes so I'll say yes.

Only time will tell. The network hasn't aired Any Day Now since the beginning of last year. And I haven't seen Chicago Hope aired in I don't know how long so, maybe they're simply giving them a break or it all comes down to rights as DD mentioned. Either or may also be the case with UM. Who knows.

Only time will tell. The network hasn't aired Any Day Now since the beginning of last year. And I haven't seen Chicago Hope aired in I don't know how long so, maybe they're simply giving them a break or it all comes down to rights as DD mentioned. Either or may also be the case with UM. Who knows.

Sometimes, I toy with the theory that some TV execs want to give shows like UM a rest. There might be some merit to it, especially since you'll probably never find a TV show that has (or had) unanimous support from the television industry. Maybe 90 percent support, but not 100 percent.

I don't know about any of you, but for all the years that UM was in production, I often found myself wanting more of what the show had to offer. I guess that was particularily evident when I occasionally wrote to the show to offer suggestions for stories.

Just to weigh in my two cents, I'm sure that Lifetime will bring UM back. Personally, I think that they are experimenting with different television shows and seeing if they can improve ratings. UM has proven to be a good stand-by, so it makes sense to me that they want to shelve it (at least for the time being) to see if any of their new programming will develop a following.

Only time will tell. The network hasn't aired Any Day Now since the beginning of last year.

That's because it is airing on Lifetimes new channel "Lifetime Real Women's Channel" or something like that. Along with some others that haven't been seen on Lifetime in a long time.

There's an old saying "You never realize what you have until it's taken away" that kind of applies to UM and myself. I've always liked the show, and I have a good library: I have all of the First Look Box sets, all of CD's collections so far, as well as several dozen segments I taped off of Lifetime myself. However, I wish I would have taped the show religiously so I would have even more segments. It's something I always wanted to do, but I would just kind of go in streaks where I would tape it for awhile, and then kind of shelf it, then pick it up again. I knew it would go off the air eventually, I just wish I would have taken advantage of it more while it was still on.

Personally, I think that they are experimenting with different television shows and seeing if they can improve ratings. UM has proven to be a good stand-by, so it makes sense to me that they want to shelve it (at least for the time being) to see if any of their new programming will develop a following.

Inevitably, new shows come and go. Besides, I don't expect Lifetime to rely only on UM. A network should never let its existence depend entirely (or primarily) on one particular show.

I am just curious, is Lifetime free-to-air? I ask that becoz we haven't had UM since around 1997-98 here (Australia) on free-to-air. It came to Foxtel a couple of years ago but it now has been taken off.

Hopefully TV Land if not Lifetime. Does TV Land show the complete episodes unedited? I noticed that they showed only the half hour edited episodes of "The Flip Wilson Show" instead of the full hour broadcasts. Nick At Nite did the same with "Laugh in" several years ago and probably they will do the same with UM if they show it.

To answer your question Space Invaderz Lifetime is only shown on cable or satellite to my knowledge so I suppose its not free-to-air.

I really wonder if Lifetime realizes what a large audience UM brings in. I really don't think Nielson's is too accurate. I know its better to mail them a letter but it was more convenient for me to email them so I did. I encouraged them to bring UM back and thanked them for the years they have shown it. I also told them in a nice way that there were a lot of people out there that only watched Lifetime because UM was on it. I thought maybe if they thought they would lose viewers because they yanked UM they would reconsider it. Hey it couldn't hurt, right?

To answer your question Space Invaderz Lifetime is only shown on cable or satellite to my knowledge so I suppose its not free-to-air.

I really wonder if Lifetime realizes what a large audience UM brings in. I really don't think Nielson's is too accurate. I know its better to mail them a letter but it was more convenient for me to email them so I did. I encouraged them to bring UM back and thanked them for the years they have shown it. I also told them in a nice way that there were a lot of people out there that only watched Lifetime because UM was on it. I thought maybe if they thought they would lose viewers because they yanked UM they would reconsider it. Hey it couldn't hurt, right?

Hey anything is worth a shot. I really hope they do put it back on.

I encouraged them to bring UM back and thanked them for the years they have shown it. I also told them in a nice way that there were a lot of people out there that only watched Lifetime because UM was on it. I thought maybe if they thought they would lose viewers because they yanked UM they would reconsider it. Hey it couldn't hurt, right?

It's better to make the effort, only to fail, than to do nothing and wonder if making an effort would have made any difference. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "it is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed."

I don't see Unsolved Mysteries as a subject among it's Lifetime shows on their message board, I think they might have pulled it indefinately. Anybody here ever discuss UM on their message board?

I agree with CrystalDawn, I don't think Nielson Ratings are very accurate at all. I have not known a single, solitary person that has ever had one of those Neilson boxes, and reportedly a single Neilson box is used to represent many, many households. Neilsons are essentially polls, which have been known to be very inaccurate.

I'm going to use a political poll example, but I'm staying neutral and am not revealing any political beliefs or allegiance to either party. 2 days before the 2002 elections, Tim Russert had 4 of the top political analysts on Meet the Press, and they were running down the latest polls for various Senate races. In Colorado, they had Democrat Tom (or Ted) Strickland winning by about 7 percentage points over Repulican incumbent Wayne Allard. Everyone agreed that Strickland was going to win. Well, 2 days later, Allard won by somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9 percentage points. The polls were very, VERY wrong.

It is my belief that the Neilson ratings have caused good shows to get cancelled due to "low ratings", while worse shows get renewed due to "higher ratings"

I don't see Unsolved Mysteries as a subject among it's Lifetime shows on their message board, I think they might have pulled it indefinately. Anybody here ever discuss UM on their message board?
Lifetime never had a Message Board for Unsloved Mysteries.

I'm going to use a political poll example, but I'm staying neutral and am not revealing any political beliefs or allegiance to either party. 2 days before the 2002 elections, Tim Russert had 4 of the top political analysts on Meet the Press, and they were running down the latest polls for various Senate races. In Colorado, they had Democrat Tom (or Ted) Strickland winning by about 7 percentage points over Repulican incumbent Wayne Allard. Everyone agreed that Strickland was going to win. Well, 2 days later, Allard won by somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9 percentage points. The polls were very, VERY wrong.

Well, I always predicted Allard would win that race. In fact, it got me in trouble on a couple of liberal sites since they didn't like a newcomer insisting the Democrat would lose. A few posters told me I was being put on ignore.

Zogby was the one who blew that race. His late polling had Strickland ahead by absurd margin, first 9 points and then 5. That's why you had the Sunday pundits embracing Strickland. Zogby was the guru pollster at the time since he had basically nailed the presidential popular vote in '96 and '00, the only major pollster who had Gore winning the popular vote in '00.

But as you can see by this link, not every late poll had Strickland ahead. The CNN/USA TODAY poll showed Allard leading by 2: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/Senate_02_Polls.html#CO

A couple of factors led me to assert for months that Allard would win that race and by greater margin than the polls indicated. First of all, Strickland was damaged goods. He had run against Allard in '96 and lost. Rematches inevitably go to the initial winner in this day and age, and by greater margin. That's why Gore was very wise to skip an '04 rematch with Bush. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the '00 outcome and Florida, Gore would have lost decisively if he had pursued a rematch in '04.

If you run for a major statewide race and lose when the natural partisanship of the state favors the other side, it's almost hopeless if you try again. I can give many examples. Erskine Bowles (D) ran twice for senate in North Carolina in '02 and '04, two losses. Doug Forrester (R) sought the senate and gov races in New Jersey, two losses. This year, even though the polls are basically even, I would be shocked if Claire McCaskill (D) won the Missouri senate race. She ran for gov in 2004 and lost by 3 points.

Since Colorado is a red state, a Democrat like Strickland is really embracing optimism is he thinks he can lose statewide then try again vs. the same opponent the next time out. It would be different if the state favored his politics, like John Thune (R) losing the South Dakota senate race vs. Tim Johnson in '02 then defeating Tom Daschle in '04. That's a heavy GOP state.

Also, and this will sound weird, but Tom Strickland had a self-inflicted handicap in 2002. A big prominent mustache. That was hardly a minor factor in my confidence he would lose bigtime. Women, even if subconsciously, do not prefer and will not vote for men who have mustaches, at least not in typical number. Now I hope the women don't pounce and say, hey I'm a woman and I love mustaches. Obviously we're talking small percentages here. But that can be critical in politics. Jimmy The Greek Snyder made his fame and fortune largely due to his huge bet on Truman to defeat Dewey in '48. The reason for that: Dewey had a mustache and Jimmy The Greek was convinced that would doom him in the women's vote: http://www.thegreek.com/2004/betting-politics.asp

"It was in 1948 when Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, noting that a recent study showed that women did not trust men with mustaches, boldly predicted that underdog incumbent Harry Truman would defeat the hirsute Thomas Dewey."

That trend has held up in major statewide races. Especially if it is merely a mustache, and not full beard. Mustaches are the kiss of death in major American politics. Strickland was hardly the only victim in 2002. There were four major gov and senate races that year featuring men with mustaches, two Democrats and two Republicans; all four lost and none of them came close to matching their poll numbers. As one woman from Colorado who worked on Strickland's campaign posted in reply to me on one of those liberal sites after I posted a thread about this, "you know, many friends and I were saying the same thing before the election, that Tom would win if he would lose the damn mustache."

Allard defeated Strickland by 5 points, 51-46, virtually identical to the percentages from '96. Here's the dooming image: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2002/races/co_senate.html

It is my belief that the Neilson ratings have caused good shows to get cancelled due to "low ratings", while worse shows get renewed due to "higher ratings"

It happens too often. But of course, rave reviews and general appreciation for a show doesn't automatically make it successful. On a similar topic, people will often assume that hype over a new show will translate to success, but history shows that isn't always the case.

One example is the remake of The Fugitve (starring Tim Daly). Before its debut in October 2000, CBS heavily promoted the show, so there was a lot of hype over it. It was predicted that The Fugitive would be a success for CBS, and that the other new show, CSI (which was getting little promotion), would die a premature death. Instead, however, CSI became a bit hit (and is about to enter its seventh season), while The Fugitive was axed after only one season.

I'd like to chime in here in that FOX is one of the worst offenders in axing a show before it has a chance to get its legs. Two of my favorite series in the past few years were "Skin" (starring Ron Silver who is one of my all time favorite actors) and "The Inside" (starring Peter Coyote)

While I admit taste is subjective I believe both shows were not given a fair shake by FOX as they only aired the first three or four episodes before axing them. The shows later turned up in syndication in Europe which aired the full twelve episodes of each show that were filmed (I obtained the full run of both series on dvd through trading) and the later episodes are heads and tails above the earlier ones because characters and plotlines are expounded upon.

But FOX just cancelled both before they got their "legs". Stupid FOX

Yeah, FOX kills me with it's ability to pull the plug on a show before it even had a chance to develop a following. Examples of shows that I loved that were axed too early were "Girl's Club," "Tru Calling," and the obvious example of "Family Guy," although it stands as the ONLY show in television history (at least to my knowledge) that has been cancelled and brought back to life by the same network.

Just goes to show you how powerful fans really can be.

Lifetime never had a Message Board for Unsloved Mysteries.

I thought they did, maybe if we keep e mailing or writing them they will put it back on and show the episodes not shown in a long time.

and the obvious example of "Family Guy," although it stands as the ONLY show in television history (at least to my knowledge) that has been cancelled and brought back to life by the same network.

Just goes to show you how powerful fans really can be.

Wasn't AMW briefly cancelled then brought back by FOX?

Wasn't AMW briefly cancelled then brought back by FOX?

It was briefly cancelled by Fox and people wrote letters to the network requesting it be brought back.

It was briefly cancelled by Fox and people wrote letters to the network requesting it be brought back.

I was among those many people who wrote to Fox, protesting the cancellation. AMW was off the air for only six weeks, so it's probably the shortest canceled series (as AMW producer Lance Heflin once remarked).

It was extremely fortunate that Fox realized that mistake sooner rather than later. Had it been later (say, two or three years later), that would have been very bad because the AMW crew (including host John Walsh) would most likely have already moved on to other jobs by then. So it would have been very difficult (if not impossible) to get them back to do AMW again. Although some of the AMW staff did get other jobs lined up when the show was canceled in 1996, it was, thankfully, not too late to get John Walsh and some of the producers (including Lance Heflin) to return to work on AMW when it was revived.

I really hope Lifetime will put UM back on. I don't see why they ever took it off in the first place.

I am optimistic that the show will eventually be back on the air on some shape or form. They need to focus on stories that are more timeless rather then an unsolved homicide that dates 15 to 20 years back. It is kind of ghoulish to see some of those old unsolved murders. Not that I am trying to insiduate that watching reality based crime shows makes you a ghoul, but think how a family feels watching their loved ones story being aired on syndication for over 10 years? I admire the voice from the grave coming back to say her killer's name, but do we need to see it 100 times? We need to see more bible code, Ice Man, Roswell, and Ghost lights. What should be left in the shelf are Miracle Choir and something about young kids not dying when a bomb exploded in their school. LOL, I think you know what segment I am talking about.

I am optimistic that the show will eventually be back on the air on some shape or form. They need to focus on stories that are more timeless rather then an unsolved homicide that dates 15 to 20 years back. It is kind of ghoulish to see some of those old unsolved murders. Not that I am trying to insiduate that watching reality based crime shows makes you a ghoul, but think how a family feels watching their loved ones story being aired on syndication for over 10 years? I admire the voice from the grave coming back to say her killer's name, but do we need to see it 100 times? We need to see more bible code, Ice Man, Roswell, and Ghost lights. What should be left in the shelf are Miracle Choir and something about young kids not dying when a bomb exploded in their school. LOL, I think you know what segment I am talking about.

Please keep in mind that if the unsolved homicideds from 15-20 years ago that you described are not shown, the chances of them being solved go down. These segments are timeless, and we need them to keep being re-aired so that hopefully someone will finally step foward with that one clue. There have been several instances of cases being solved years after the segment aired originally, and after several subsequent airings. There might be a few exceptions, but I would suggest that most of the families of the victims would want their story to continue getting re-aired so that their is greater hope that the mystery will one day be solved. While I enjoy a wide variety of segments, and do like segments such as the Bible code and Roswell that you mentioned, those have since been done to death (no pun intended) on many other shows. Unsolved Mysteries was one of the few shows that showed unsolved murders/missing persons, so if it's going to focus its attention on anywhere it should be getting scumbags off the streets over unexplained phenomenon.

<<Please keep in mind that if the unsolved homicideds from 15-20 years ago that you described are not shown, the chances of them being solved go down. These segments are timeless, and we need them to keep being re-aired so that hopefully someone will finally step foward with that one clue. There have been several instances of cases being solved years after the segment aired originally, and after several subsequent airings. There might be a few exceptions, but I would suggest that most of the families of the victims would want their story to continue getting re-aired so that their is greater hope that the mystery will one day be solved. While I enjoy a wide variety of segments, and do like segments such as the Bible code and Roswell that you mentioned, those have since been done to death (no pun intended) on many other shows. Unsolved Mysteries was one of the few shows that showed unsolved murders/missing persons, so if it's going to focus its attention on anywhere it should be getting scumbags off the streets over unexplained phenomenon.>>

Then what is the meaning or purpose of constantly repeating segments that already have been updated over 10 years ago? They are many times where the "Scumbags" are already locked up for years, and yet the segment is repeated. Lifetime did many things great when they put the show in syndication. But they should do things correct if they plan to resume airing it in the future again.

[QUOTE=Awsi Dooger]_I would be shocked if Claire McCaskill (D) won the Missouri senate race.

I guess you must have been shocked eh Awsi? (just playin' with ya)
p.s. congrats on your 1000th post.

long before that race I predicted McCaskill would win by one point, and I NAILED it. Missouri is the true definition of a bellwether state, and since there was a dem wave predicted, I figured she would win, albeit not by much. Even a seasoned veteran like Kit Bond, the state's other senator, is never able to run up his margin of victory by too much.

"I would be shocked if Claire McCaskill (D) won the Missouri senate race."

I guess you must have been shocked eh Awsi? (just playin' with ya)
p.s. congrats on your 1000th post.

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but long before that race I predicted McCaskill would win by one point, and I NAILED it. Missouri is the true definition of a bellwether state, and since there was a dem wave predicted, I figured she would win, albeit not by much. Even a seasoned veteran like Kit Bond, the state's other senator, is never able to run up his margin of victory by too much.

Yeah, I was surprised. That was the one major race I got wrong on election eve, predicting on a few political forums. I didn't have a great feel for the House districts nationwide so I focused on gov and senate. I nailed every gov race correctly, although admittedly not many were in the balance, maybe Minnesota, Rhode Island, Nevada, Idaho and Maryland. In the senate I eventually came around to Webb in Virginia, and Brown looked obvious in Ohio, but I always thought Talent would hold on narrowly in Missouri. He didn't have high negatives or any major scandal so normally an incumbent will prevail in a situation like that. The Tester/Burns race was also much closer than I expected in Montana. Taxes became a big issue in the final weeks and Burns closed the gap despite all the gaffes he made earlier.

Hey, I stick with my main opinion, the one that prompted that McCaskill reference: unwise to run a recent statewide loser in another statewide race. Democrats lost one like that when they insisted on running Tony Knowles again, against Sarah Palin in the Alaska gov race just two years after he lost the senate race against Lisa Murkowski. I'm glad it looks like Jean Shaheen won't be the one to challenge John Sununu next year in New Hampshire senate, after she lost to him in 2002. New blood is preferable.

Oh yeah, 1000 posts. Thanks for pointing it out. Maybe Mary has a surprise for me. :lol:

Awsi has 1000 posts? I'll be damned if I'm gonna look up to HIM as a Senior Member... :p

I'm obviously kidding. Awsi knows I love him. :)

Talk about skipping steps. I go from junkie to senior with nothing in between.

I do appreciate being loved. But mostly I need a nap. That may be a recurring theme.

Talk about skipping steps. I go from junkie to senior with nothing in between.

I encountered the opposite problem. When I was nearing 250 posts, which was the requirement for the 'forum junkie' status, they suddenly changed the requirement to 500 posts.

Personally, I enjoy being a Junkie...

Oh, we were talking about the BOARDS. I think I may have said too much.... :devil: