FOX did that third option with FUTURAMA, so it's not out of the question.

Especially when the other two of the three companies benefit. Especially in the aspects they are in. Television gets all that much closer to the magic syndication number and Home Video gets more shows to package into a dvd that is selling in the top 50 no problem.

Buffy got that bump from WB to UPN and because UPN felt the ratings were lackluster they didn't want to take on Angel when WB canceled it (hey, could reunion be a sort of f you?)

Considering how much of a ratings slumper AD is, All three entities have everything to gain from the move. Fox Network doesn't need to worry about low ratings bringing down advertisment rates,

Difference... [Futurama was a] 2 million dollar budget cartoon that no one else could afford and Fox had two seasons worth of episodes left to air.

Except there's no benefit for FOX, the network, and the ball is in their court. Basically, whenever a show is cancelled and allowed to go to another network, it's at the grace of the original network. Sometimes that network can be nice about it, and sometimes they can be dicks.

You're still confusing three seperate entities as one unit. Buffy and Angel were never developed for FOX the network and then "offered" to another network. They were developed from the ground up for the WB.

Televison studios and Television networks must work as seperate, autonomous units, as mandated by Federal Law. As a result, lots of shows produced by Fox Television Studios are made for networks other than FOX, and FOX airs shows produced by studios other than Fox Television.

while not directly benefitting from its continuation, FOX's parent company might like to see it continue to the benefit of two of its other divisions, unlike Reunion, which was produced by Warner Bros and would likely be released on video by WHV.

Thanks for stating what I already know first hand. The point is, much like tru calling, The over all business has two thirds to benefit from this.

Network may lose a show, but they already have shitty ratings with the show. So it's no loss to lose it or give it up to another network and run it as a first run syndication program to another network.

As for futurama, even when new episodes weren't ordered and they burned away the episodes that to them would last the two seasons because of how many times football pre-empted them,

no other network was interested or even considered it because of the production cost per episode.

Fox Network has the rights of first refusal for the 20th television shows. In this case, they will either have the choice to renew or refuse it.

At that point 20th television and imagine go for the first run rights to others. Especially with ABC and showtime expressing great interest and Fox already set for when they will burn off the episodes and wipe their hands clean of it, I don't see why you can't tell that this is a completely different case then.. say Reunion.

This is a different case completely.

gee, thanks for stating what I already said. Much like how WB canceled Angel because they wanted to go with a potential pilot that failed, WB had no interest in or invested concern for angel since it wasn't there production.

Much the same Fox doesn't give a shit about Reunion. It doesn't benefit the over all investiment of the studio in the other aspects.

....it could get 20th television to have another 88 episode syndicated show. Considering once you hit that number you make free money with your show..

Well, so far it hasn't officially cancelled the show, despite shortening the order for new shows this season and now burning through the rest. Productions can't sit on their haunches forever, people need paychecks. When Firefly was over, it was officially cancelled before the last episode aired. Maybe they have a legitimate reason for not officially cancelling AD yet.

If it's no loss, why do they occasionally not let other networks pick up the shows they cancel?

The WB doesn't have any productions, and neither does FOX, or ABC, NBC, CBS, or UPN for that matter.

Fox studio didn't make Reunion. Are you confusing the network with the studio again?

Showtime Wants to Get 'Arrested'

By Rick Porter

Friday, January 20, 2006

08:56 AM PT
Showtime is certainly not playing coy about its desire to pick up "Arrested Development" if FOX cancels the show. But the cable network doesn't seem to be blind in its ardor either.

Speaking to reporters Thursday (Jan. 19) at the Television Critics Association press tour, Showtime Entertainment president Robert Greenblatt acknowledged that his network and 20th Century Fox TV, which produces "Arrested," have been discussing the show. (ABC has reportedly expressed interest as well.)

"I always thought it was probably a better fit on a cable network than on a broadcast network," Greenblatt says. "And you know, in fact, I think it really does fit in with a lot of the things that we're doing."

Still, several things have to fall into place for the Emmy-winning series to make the move to premium cable. FOX, first of all, has to cancel the show -- which it probably will, given network head Peter Ligouri's statement earlier in the week that it's "highly unlikely" the show will return to FOX next season. And Greenblatt says striking the right deal between network and studio "is complicated and takes longer than you'd ever imagine."

More important, though, Greenblatt says Showtime would only want "Arrested Development" if its creator, Mitch Hurwitz, remains involved.

"I think he's the genius behind it, and he hasn't yet come to that decision to continue the show," Greenblatt says of Hurwitz. "He's been through a lot of sort of emotional roller coaster over the last couple years. So he finished the season for FOX, and he's in that period of, you know, thinking about whether he wants to continue the show."

"Arrested's" audience of about 4.2 million viewers per week is pretty small for a broadcast network. But for Showtime, which is in fewer than 20 million homes, even, say, a quarter of that number would be considered a success. The lure of the show could potentially lead to new subscriptions, meaning a bigger possible audience for Showtime's other series.

"[Picking up 'Arrested'] at a point in time where we're having a good deal of success both critically and commercially makes a really big statement for us," Showtime Chairman and CEO Matthew Blank says. There's a lot of things we could be doing right now. But for me, the prospects of having 'Arrested Development' and [recent Golden Globe honoree] 'Weeds' on this network, you know, at the same time are quite remarkable."

'Arrested Development' a 'Long Shot' for ABC
By Rick Porter Saturday, January 21, 2006 11:29 AM PT
And now, the last "Arrested Development" story from the Television Critics Association midseason press tour.

Speaking to reporters Saturday (Jan. 21) at the Television Critics Association press tour, ABC Entertainment chief Steve McPherson acknowledged his love for the show but also said chances are slim it would land on his network next fall.

"I don't really foresee" a situation in which ABC picks up the Emmy-winning series, which is likely on its last legs at FOX. Earlier in the week, FOX head Peter Ligouri acknowledged it was "highly unlikely" that he'd pick it up for a fourth season, although the network has yet to cancel it outright.

"I just love that show. I believe I can market that show really well," McPherson says. That said, he considers it "a long shot" that "Arrested" will wind up on ABC in the fall.

That would apparently leave Showtime as the show's last, best hope for new life. Thursday, Showtime's Robert Greenblatt said the pay-cable network and "Arrested" producer 20th Century Fox TV have been discussing a deal for the show. He also said he would only want the series if creator Mitch Hurwitz remains in charge, and Hurwitz hasn't made that decision yet.