Re: "New" episode isn't so new...

From: Andy Hill <>
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 07:06:56 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 26 May 1995, Ian Lynn wrote:

> Dr. Conway said-
> errrr....I tend to disagree. Yes, it is a good sign to see a new
> episode, I suppose. But what good is it if that episode positively
> stinks? It's bound to create a bad impression, and any such bad
> impressions can always be pointed to and used as excuses to can the
> series. Yes?
> ____________________________________

     The really strange thing here is, that on r.a.a. and a lot of folks
on the list, most viewers were happy to see _anything_ new, which I suspect
just underscores our point of view as opposed to giving Ted any more
cancellation ammunition. Ted seems to be the master of unilateral,
(witness the go ahead given for "Planet" despite sound advice) and to my
knowledge has never gone out of his way to provide/create reasons for
what he does, it's simply the wonderfully megalomaniac attitude of "I did
it, therefore it's right".

> I would have to agree with this comment, if an individual, especially an adult
> (because of the poor transitions) was watching SK for the first time this
> weekend. I would venture to guess they would flip to it watch about 5 min.,
> and continue surfing the channels. More than likely, if they flip passed TBS
> this weekend, they wouldn't stop if the Kats were on, because of it.

     Honestly, I never thought of this aspect whatsoever, but you're
exactly right. Doesn't it become obvious with this ep that they still
don't quite understand the mean age demo of the audience? They may have
gotten away with the ep in the low end of the 6-11 kiddie demographic,
but the rest of us realized a lot of stuff was cobbled together out of
context, and didn't preserve the "spirit" of the bits in relation to the
stories they were cribbed from (i.e. Falk's Feral/Metallikats scene from
"Metal Urgency"). I would hate to think what impression this ep would
leave on a potential new viewer who hadn't seen any of the other eps.

> First impressions weigh heavy in this society, especially in the fickle
> TV market. If this episode has been sitting on a shelf since the start of
> the second season, maybe Ted had been gunning for the show for longer than
> I thought, and suggested they put together a show that could essentially ruin
> the second season. Think about it, after a very good first season, imagine
> what r.a.a.(among other places) would have looked like after this episode
> started off this years season. "Swatkats off and flopping", "Swatkats suck, what
> do you people see in them", negative headings's unfortuanate,
> but it's the way we work here in the good ol' US.

     I think that you nailed why this _wasn't_ shown as intended; most of
the creative folks likely thought as you did. I strongly believe that
this was only taken down from the shelf and dusted off specifically
because someone perceived a demand for something new, and H-B had nothing
to offer. Lately, a lot of things appear to be pointing towards some
kind of thaw, but I hate to be too optimistic at this point given
Turner's track record to date, and Seibert's complete lack of
responsiveness to both the Tremblays and fans both. (Christian calls him
something like 15 times a day if he _really_ wants to get hold of him - I
like it, persistence worthy of a 'KAT).


Received on Fri May 26 1995 - 10:00:00 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Feb 22 2016 - 19:57:25 PST