Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion ExecutiveMeddling / LiveActionTV

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
JakeALoh Since: Nov, 2016
Feb 15th 2019 at 7:37:42 PM •••

Um...oops...it appears I fucked something up with the UK channel 4 folder, and my trope page links have come out in italics. Help please?

Tonycamboni Since: Aug, 2018
Aug 18th 2018 at 8:23:50 PM •••

Some of the companies on this page (Channel 4 UK, Slice, the nz channels) only list 1 or 2 examples, should a misc folder be created to house these cases?

Venture No One of Consequence Since: Jun, 2009
No One of Consequence
Jan 16th 2014 at 6:21:25 AM •••

The entry for Babylon 5 under TNT mentions the addition of Warren Keffer. This actually took place while the show was running on the nascent PTEN network. (It was also the last meaningful case of Executive Meddling until the Crusade debacle.)

OldManHoOh It's super effective. Since: Jul, 2010
It's super effective.
Nov 8th 2011 at 4:06:14 PM •••

  • Currently, Criminal Minds is in danger of this, as for "creative" (a.k.a. financial) reasons, executives want to fire A.J. Cook and replace JJ with a new character. To add further insult, they also plan to reduce Paget Brewster's role for the next season, completely upsetting the gender ratio of the show. (And this is the same network that is bribing Charlie Sheen to stay on Two and a Half Men, despite his tabloid behavior). Naturally, fans are outraged by this sexist treatment, and they're doing something about it. Blogs are up in flames, people are emailing and calling complaints to CBS, petitions are signed by the tens of thousands to reverse CBS's decision. Even the actors (both male and female) are expressing outrage on their Twitter accounts. There's also talk of boycotting the network and its advertisers until the situation is righted. Hopefully this might resolve soon, otherwise Criminal Minds could suffer a fate similiar to that of a certain sci-fi show (Doctor Who) when it was in trouble twenty-five years ago...
    • As of the end of the 2010/2011 season this is being fixed: both Paget and AJ are returning to the show in the 2011/2012 season. Go fans!
      • Actually, that's not why they are being brought back - or, not the entire reason, anyway. The reason for the financial cuts was to pay for the spin-off series, Criminal Minds Suspect Behavior therefore, with the cancellation of the spin-off, there is now the money to bring back AJ and Paget. (And, regarding Criminal Minds Suspect Behavior, that was a case of Executive Meddling as well: the creators originally wanted any spin-offs to feature different departments of the FBI [such as White Collar Crimes or Counter-Terrorist Activities], rather than re-hash the BAU.)

Examples Are Not Recent, combined with a bit of Wiki Schizophrenia. Can someone clarify and clean this up? Also, what the hell is up with those pointless spoiler tags?

Edited by OldManHoOh Hide / Show Replies
Indigo12ash Since: Feb, 2012
Apr 1st 2012 at 3:11:16 PM •••

How does this look for the Criminal Minds example?

  • In the sixth season of Criminal Minds, the execs announced that they were going to fire A.J. Cook and limited Paget Brewster's screen time for "creative reasons" *. The fans were not happy. After many protests and letters, A.J. was able to come back for the first two episodes of the season, Paget's "goodbye" episode, and the season finale to announce she was returning next season. Paget was brought back as a regular for season seven as well.
    • The original plan for A.J.'s character was to Brother Chuck her.

Momentum, a function of mass and velocity, is conserved between portals. In layman's terms: speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out.
IanExMachina The Paedofinder General Since: Jul, 2009
The Paedofinder General
Dec 6th 2010 at 8:37:34 AM •••

I'm not sure the first line of the page is very good compared to what it replaced, and just seems like an extra attempt to pothole an author/producer, so I'll change it back unless there are any objections?

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
Top