TMC
06-22-2022, 08:47 PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-buffy29jan29,1,6891979.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business
The fight over "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in early 2001 likely set off a chain of events that resulted in last week's CW merger, according to the LA Times. "That fall," reports the paper, "the show shifted to UPN, and with it went the WB's identity as the go-to destination for young viewers ... In the end, many agree, the WB's loss of 'Buffy' -- which breathed new life into the struggling UPN -- set in motion a pitched battle for the coveted youth market that would eventually doom both networks."
How much will the owner of TheCW.com make? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6302818.html?display=Breaking%2BNews&referral=SUPP)
Too bad UPN's culture will dominate The CW (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06027/645065.stm)
"Make no mistake, UPN clearly won the war," says Rob Owen, noting that The WB's unique brand of creativity had already diminished in recent years. He adds: "It's a bummer that UPN's corporate culture (conservative, cheap and a little uptight, like CBS) will likely prevail over The WB's culture (hip, lively and loose), but a lot of that sense of fun and love of TV had already been erased by the mismanagement of The WB over the past two years."
How long till The CW name is changed? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/62346.htm)
Why CW is bound to succeed (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/26/DDG1AGSG0U1.DTL)
"This move makes a lot of business sense," says Tim Goodman, "and television was built on selling soap, so you couldn't call it unexpected. The merger of two small networks into one small network (with a new name: the CW), may turn out to be that rarest of true cliches: a win-win. Not only for the bean counters, but for the viewers." He notes that, in the aftermath of the merger, "immediately the creative atmosphere gets more competitive -- and that usually breeds better quality from scripts to writers, to actor and director choices."
CW should stand for "Could Work" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/256977_tv26.html) // More CW dream scheduling (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/alltv/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1138257306202730.xml&coll=1%0D)
The CW: Which shows will make the cut? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11007437/)
"Everwood" and "One Tree Hill" look to be among the most vulnerable, according to this MSNBC analysis, which gives odds on each show's chances for survival. But as the article points out, WB and UPN sitcoms will suffer the most, with the exception of "Everybody Hates Chris." Says MSNBC: "'Living with Fran' mostly serves as a reminder of 'The Nanny's' bulletproof status; 'Love, Inc.' has little to offer besides an integrated cast (UPN's strong suit) that struggles to salvage some screechingly bad jokes; and 'Twins' is just flat-out embarrassing. Among the personality-driven offerings, 'Eve' and 'Reba' might survive, but only on the basis of having built-in (if very different) fan bases." PLUS: The CW name is permanent (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/the-cw/making-the-cw-were-stuck-with-the-name-150667.php), says Les Moonves.
Deal has been in the works since Thanksgiving (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117936727?cs=1&s=h&p=0) // WB, UPN producers stunned (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-programming25jan25,1,2573530.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business)
The dream CW lineup? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/01/the_new_cw_netw.html) // Only 12.5 hours of WB, UPN shows are worth saving (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/385471p-327145c.html)
WB & UPN MERGE, FORMING THE CW NETWORK (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/news/companies/cbs_warner/?cnn=yes)
The surprise announcement (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/nytu143.html?.v=43) was made today: "Warner Brothers and CBS Corp. announced plans Tuesday for the creation of a new broadcast television network, called CW, that would replace the WB and UPN networks in the fall of this year. The new broadcast network will draw on programming from both WB and UPN, and will be a joint venture between Warner Bros. and CBS, with each company owning 50 percent." The combined network promises to show everything from "Veronica Mars" to "Gilmore Girls" to "America's Next Top Model" and "Smallville."
Which UPN, WB shows won't make CW's 13 primetime hours? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://time.blogs.com/tuned_in/2006/01/if_you_cant_bea.html)
The fight over "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in early 2001 likely set off a chain of events that resulted in last week's CW merger, according to the LA Times. "That fall," reports the paper, "the show shifted to UPN, and with it went the WB's identity as the go-to destination for young viewers ... In the end, many agree, the WB's loss of 'Buffy' -- which breathed new life into the struggling UPN -- set in motion a pitched battle for the coveted youth market that would eventually doom both networks."
How much will the owner of TheCW.com make? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6302818.html?display=Breaking%2BNews&referral=SUPP)
Too bad UPN's culture will dominate The CW (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06027/645065.stm)
"Make no mistake, UPN clearly won the war," says Rob Owen, noting that The WB's unique brand of creativity had already diminished in recent years. He adds: "It's a bummer that UPN's corporate culture (conservative, cheap and a little uptight, like CBS) will likely prevail over The WB's culture (hip, lively and loose), but a lot of that sense of fun and love of TV had already been erased by the mismanagement of The WB over the past two years."
How long till The CW name is changed? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/62346.htm)
Why CW is bound to succeed (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/26/DDG1AGSG0U1.DTL)
"This move makes a lot of business sense," says Tim Goodman, "and television was built on selling soap, so you couldn't call it unexpected. The merger of two small networks into one small network (with a new name: the CW), may turn out to be that rarest of true cliches: a win-win. Not only for the bean counters, but for the viewers." He notes that, in the aftermath of the merger, "immediately the creative atmosphere gets more competitive -- and that usually breeds better quality from scripts to writers, to actor and director choices."
CW should stand for "Could Work" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/256977_tv26.html) // More CW dream scheduling (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/alltv/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1138257306202730.xml&coll=1%0D)
The CW: Which shows will make the cut? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11007437/)
"Everwood" and "One Tree Hill" look to be among the most vulnerable, according to this MSNBC analysis, which gives odds on each show's chances for survival. But as the article points out, WB and UPN sitcoms will suffer the most, with the exception of "Everybody Hates Chris." Says MSNBC: "'Living with Fran' mostly serves as a reminder of 'The Nanny's' bulletproof status; 'Love, Inc.' has little to offer besides an integrated cast (UPN's strong suit) that struggles to salvage some screechingly bad jokes; and 'Twins' is just flat-out embarrassing. Among the personality-driven offerings, 'Eve' and 'Reba' might survive, but only on the basis of having built-in (if very different) fan bases." PLUS: The CW name is permanent (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/the-cw/making-the-cw-were-stuck-with-the-name-150667.php), says Les Moonves.
Deal has been in the works since Thanksgiving (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117936727?cs=1&s=h&p=0) // WB, UPN producers stunned (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-programming25jan25,1,2573530.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business)
The dream CW lineup? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2006/01/the_new_cw_netw.html) // Only 12.5 hours of WB, UPN shows are worth saving (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ent_radio/story/385471p-327145c.html)
WB & UPN MERGE, FORMING THE CW NETWORK (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/news/companies/cbs_warner/?cnn=yes)
The surprise announcement (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060124/nytu143.html?.v=43) was made today: "Warner Brothers and CBS Corp. announced plans Tuesday for the creation of a new broadcast television network, called CW, that would replace the WB and UPN networks in the fall of this year. The new broadcast network will draw on programming from both WB and UPN, and will be a joint venture between Warner Bros. and CBS, with each company owning 50 percent." The combined network promises to show everything from "Veronica Mars" to "Gilmore Girls" to "America's Next Top Model" and "Smallville."
Which UPN, WB shows won't make CW's 13 primetime hours? (https://web.archive.org/web/20060202021957/http://time.blogs.com/tuned_in/2006/01/if_you_cant_bea.html)