Search Details

Word: paramount (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

Warner and Paramount, the two newest entrants in the network derby, see Fox not as a nemesis but as a network to emulate. Just as Fox did at the outset, each has cobbled together a lineup of affiliates composed largely of independent uhf stations. Like Fox, each is starting modestly, with one or two nights of programming, and plans to expand gradually to additional nights. Moreover, both are trying to reach the same audience that Fox has made its specialty: teens and young adults, particularly males...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TELEVISION: Network Crazy! | 1/16/1995 | See Source »

...first batch of shows on WB and UPN will convince no one that they are bringing something new to TV. The centerpiece of Paramount's schedule is Voyager, the fourth installment in the seemingly indestructible Star Trek series. The rest of UPN's schedule ranges from a mystery-adventure series, Marker, starring teen heartthrob Richard Grieco, to a pair of frenetic Fox- style sitcoms, Platypus Man, in which comedian Richard Jeni plays the oversexed host of a TV cooking show, and Pig Sty, about five twentysomething men who share a New York City apartment. The four sitcoms being introduced...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TELEVISION: Network Crazy! | 1/16/1995 | See Source »

...Start-up costs have been estimated at $300 million apiece, and each network could lose between $50 million and $75 million in the first year alone. Also, unlike Fox, which was able to scoop up relatively strong independent stations in a number of markets when it began, Warner and Paramount have had to settle for the weaker leftovers. Paramount seems in the better position at the outset: it has signed up 96 affiliates (covering 79% of the country), and is promising advertisers an optimistic 7 rating (nearly what Fox now averages in a typical week), largely because of high expectations...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TELEVISION: Network Crazy! | 1/16/1995 | See Source »

...going to be very difficult for both of us," concedes Lucie Salhany, president of Paramount's UPN. "Can both survive and grow? I don't know." Jamie Kellner, chief of WB, argues that it is hit shows that count. "This is a business that's all in the programming and the promotion," he says. "If you make good programs and promote them properly, people will beat your door down." But executives for the other networks downplay any threat posed by the Warner and Paramount ventures, describing them not as networks but as enhanced versions of the syndication outfits that distribute...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TELEVISION: Network Crazy! | 1/16/1995 | See Source »

...Paramount and Warner aspire to be networks, it's partly because they - think they must in order to survive as significant TV players. The reason can be traced to the demise of the so-called financial-interest and syndication rules. Instituted in 1970, these rather abstruse regulations limited the networks' ownership of the shows they aired and barred them from the syndication business. As a result, the networks were forced to acquire their shows from outside suppliers -- ranging from big studios like Universal and Warner to smaller, independent producers like Norman Lear (All in the Family) and Carsey-Werner (Roseanne...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TELEVISION: Network Crazy! | 1/16/1995 | See Source »

Previous | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | Next