In the event that the show is canceled, it will be closed.
No quarrel, though we may want to define "canceled" to exclude syndication (if a threaded series gets that far).
I'd like us to actively discourage amnesty on the basis of subcommunity for any other threads.
I'm not sure I understand this. That seems fair in the sense that no thread is sacred. But if it means that new threads are the first to go if the board needs resources, I'm not sure that an active newer thread should be axed to allow an inactive older thread to continue.
But it's not a good sign that only 55% of the people who tuned in for Part 1 of the pilot were interested enough to tune in for Part 2.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers. 18.7 million peple watched the first part - 17 million people watched the second part. And the repeat on Saturday night was the highest rated show of the night.
I'm all for any type of television thread - whether it be general or show related. I would love to be able to talk about Lost somewhere.
17 million people watched the second part.
I read something yesterday about the second part only getting 10 or 11 million viewers.
Not that I'm obsessive about ratings or anything (hah!), but here's what USA Today had to say:
Lost averaged 18.7 million viewers for its Sept. 22 opener; an encouraging 90% of them returned for last week's second episode. Another 9 million (mostly new) viewers tuned in Saturday for repeats, handing ABC another nightly win.
Hmmm...now I'm going to have to try and remember where I read it.
I just don't see what we can do about it
I'm a big fan of waiting and seeing. I guess I don't understand what the rush is to open multiple threads for various shows. I'd feel a lot better if this proposal was about "this specific show has been generating a lot of discussion and I feel it warrants its own thread." As opposed to, "what shows would you like to see a thread for."
I'm not sure I understand this. That seems fair in the sense that no thread is sacred. But if it means that new threads are the first to go if the board needs resources, I'm not sure that an active newer thread should be axed to allow an inactive older thread to continue.
I'm sorry, I meant that specifically with regard to "sub-community" status. Some threads are just us--our community. But every place people talk isn't a sub-community. I don't necessarily think newest has to be closed first. But I don't think every thread gets subcommunity status. I'd define it more than I did earlier, but I'm afraid I'd unintentionally leave out some subcommunity, and it would appear to be on purpose, even though it would be an accident.
I think I agree with Kristen here. I'd rather do this on a show-by-show basis, rather than, "Should we make new threads? Which ones?"
Ah, ok, Cindy. It sounds more like subcommunity status has to be earned -- I'm on board with that.
Lyra, if any threads are approved, I think we should wait 'til after sweeps to open the threads, too. And if a series looks sickly, we should probably wait 'til mid season.
As deep as the Firefly love is here, there were times (not so much now, because the film is coming) that I resent like hell that 13-16 hours of TV get 2 (and at one time 3) threads. Because it was Tim and Joss, and because the show so grabbed so many Buffistas, I get over it really quickly, but still... I would hate to see that, like with say Jack and Bobby. It could be here today, and gone tomorrow. I'd rather never have a thread, than have a thread for 13 episodes.
