TiVo Community Forum Archive 1
READ ONLY ARCHIVES

Welcome to the TiVo Community Forum Archive
This archive covers threads on TiVo Community Forum that have not been posted to from the start until June 30, 2004.  Any thread that has a post made to it between 7/1/04 and 12/31/05, that had not been posted to, will be found in Archive 2.
This is a READ ONLY site.

  Search | ARCHIVE 2 | MAIN SITE

TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
>>> A bit of a rant <<<

Pages (4): « Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next »  
Forum Jump:
Search this Thread:
Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread ---> Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this thread Post New Thread    Post A Reply
cwoody222 is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 09:20 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for cwoody222 Find more posts by cwoody222 Add cwoody222 to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
cwoody222
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 2440

Thank you to those who posted that this is nothing new. I'm sick of hearing people complain about this type of stuff like it's new. I'm also upset that 24 is not on for a few weeks but I understand it's not new.

Sure, I 'remember' when I was little that there was little reruns. But I imagine that my memory's a bit off. Everyone wants to remember a perfect TV land experience when they were younger.

The fact that the average TV show produces 22 episodes (it's been 22 give or take a few for decades) and that the average season has always started in mid-Sept and the average season ends in mid-May means...we're getting the SAME amount of episodes over the SAME amount of time.

In this case - "24" would not perform well with breaks every few weeks due to the continuing nature of the plot. So they take it off the air in "chunks" and then air it in "chunks".

Primetime soaps do this all the time too.

__________________
--Chris

"whenever cwoody222 comes in and comments, it makes everything very clear" - drewman
"cwoody222 is so right-on it isn't funny" - esperantisto

POST #41 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ADG is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 07:12 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for ADG Visit ADG's homepage! Find more posts by ADG Add ADG to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ADG
Allan

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 374

quote:
Originally posted by cwoody222
Thank you to those who posted that this is nothing new. I'm sick of hearing people complain about this type of stuff like it's new.

Sorry to have upset you. If you let me know what's acceptable to you I'll try to keep future posts within those limitations.

__________________
Allan
Forum Admin
TweakXP.com

POST #42 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Steveknj is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 08:12 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for Steveknj Find more posts by Steveknj Add Steveknj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Steveknj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1111

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think his point was that there were even breaks in the schedule 20 years ago. The thread started with a complaint about the current state of the TV insdustry and used the fact that 24 won't be shown until March 30th as an example. I think Azlen was simply pointing out that this is nothing new and has been happening for quite a while.

With the current length of the TV season and the traditional number of episodes produced, there have to be weeks where the show either doesn't air or airs a rerun. This can either be a week here and a week there, or it can be in one big block, like Cheer's 2nd season and like this season's 24. Each person will prefer it one way or the other, but the network has to make a decision based on what is best for their business.



But by looking at the scheduling of those shows, he just BLEW UP his agrument. For AITF, there were SIXTEEN consecutive episodes that aired from Sept until Xmas week, Then it ran for 9 of the next 10 weeks (probably pre-empted by a special of some sort). Yes the season ended earlier than I thought, but I'd be interested to know what CBS ran in that slot from March until May.

For Cheers, they ran 11 straight from Oct until Xmas week, and then 8 straight from Jan, through the end of Feb, then came back again in May for two episodes. Again, I'd be curious to see what they ran for those two month.

Notice the trend? There was none of this 3 weeks new shows, 4 weeks reruns, etc. When was the last time ANY popular show ran SIXTEEN consecutive weeks, let alone 11 straight?

__________________
Steve

POST #43 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Steveknj is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 08:18 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for Steveknj Find more posts by Steveknj Add Steveknj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Steveknj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1111

quote:
Originally posted by jdfs
Well it would probably be illegal for all the studios to agree to pay the actors less.

I find our season in stark contrast to what the BBC does. The normal length for a season there is about 6 shows. HBO seems to be following their formula. Some would argue that the BBC shows are of higher quality (though certainly not all). I enjoy some of their shows a lot, but do feel cheated when 3 seasons worth of their shows is still less than one of ours. I guess they are able to provide more variety and bigger risks, since they only have to commit to 6 episodes and just bring back the successful ones for the next season. On the other hand you can constantly be rotating in new shows throughout the year and not stick to a October - March schedule.



So if BBC series are only about 6 shows in lenght, does that mean they run 4 series a year for each time slot or do they just repeat the same 6 episodes over and over?

__________________
Steve

POST #44 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

grecorj is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 08:58 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for grecorj Visit grecorj's homepage! Find more posts by grecorj Add grecorj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
grecorj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Feb 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2651

Maybe things aren't changing that much?

__________________
106 hr Philips DSR6000 TiVo
120 hr Hughes HDVR2 TiVo
Stock 40 hr Hughes HDVR2 TiVo -- unsubbed

Looking for news about TiVo? Try TiVoNews

POST #45 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 10:26 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

quote:
Originally posted by steveknj
But by looking at the scheduling of those shows, he just BLEW UP his agrument. For AITF, there were SIXTEEN consecutive episodes that aired from Sept until Xmas week, Then it ran for 9 of the next 10 weeks (probably pre-empted by a special of some sort). Yes the season ended earlier than I thought, but I'd be interested to know what CBS ran in that slot from March until May.

For Cheers, they ran 11 straight from Oct until Xmas week, and then 8 straight from Jan, through the end of Feb, then came back again in May for two episodes. Again, I'd be curious to see what they ran for those two month.

Notice the trend? There was none of this 3 weeks new shows, 4 weeks reruns, etc. When was the last time ANY popular show ran SIXTEEN consecutive weeks, let alone 11 straight?


I think he made his point very well. The nets only have so many shows to fill a certain time period. They can either:
1. Run them all in a row, like AITF, and be out of new eps by early March
2. Run them fairly consistently until the end of Feb and then take a two-month break, or
3. Air them a few at a time, with a week or two off every month.

#1 would never work in today's world because of May sweeps. #2 might work, but it's possible viewers won't come back for May eps if the show has been off too long. So #3 is the logical choice. You get the same number of episodes over the same length of time, and no matter which way you do it, someone is going to complain.

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #46 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

allan is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 11:28 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for allan Find more posts by allan Add allan to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
allan
Resident modern nut

Registered: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 2525

There IS a difference from the "good old days". Back then, they normally did reruns, and since I didn't always see every show the first time pre-Tivo, some of those reruns were "new" to me. That's probably unavoidable.

What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.

__________________
My Tivo is too small!

Allan is probably right. Most likely he's wrong, but he's probably right. If he slips
me a fiver he can be 100% correct. - whoknows55

POST #47 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-26-2004 11:43 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

quote:
Originally posted by allan
What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.

It used to be that the networks could show reruns and enough people would tune in that the ratings would be decent. With the proliferation of quality shows on cable and the declining ratings overall for the networks, reruns have been bringing lower and lower ratings. Even summer, which used to be exclusively for reruns, has changed. The success of the first Survivor and subsequent shows during the summer has made reruns during the summer almost non-existant. Reruns used to be profitable but they are quickly becoming not so profitable. With rising production costs and fewer opportunities to show the episodes, a show almost has to make it to syndication to break even. And once it does, the networks will milk it for all it's got.

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #48 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Steveknj is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 02:11 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for Steveknj Find more posts by Steveknj Add Steveknj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Steveknj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1111

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think he made his point very well. The nets only have so many shows to fill a certain time period. They can either:
1. Run them all in a row, like AITF, and be out of new eps by early March
2. Run them fairly consistently until the end of Feb and then take a two-month break, or
3. Air them a few at a time, with a week or two off every month.

#1 would never work in today's world because of May sweeps. #2 might work, but it's possible viewers won't come back for May eps if the show has been off too long. So #3 is the logical choice. You get the same number of episodes over the same length of time, and no matter which way you do it, someone is going to complain.



No, only ADVERTISERS would complain about #3. I think, and based on declining ratings, that the vast majority of viewers would rather see either #1 or #2. Viewers couldn't give a darn about sweeps this or sweeps that. Viewers would rather watch their favorite shows straigth through and see either re-runs or a new series after the run of shows are over. Sweeps is ONLY for advertisers and networks to set their rates, so networks screw around with the schedule in order to get the most bang during those periods. This is why I think the networks need to rethink the way they present their shows to the advertisers. I really think this strange scheduling style that is done today hurts viewership.

__________________
Steve

POST #49 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Steveknj is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 02:14 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for Steveknj Find more posts by Steveknj Add Steveknj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Steveknj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1111

quote:
Originally posted by allan
There IS a difference from the "good old days". Back then, they normally did reruns, and since I didn't always see every show the first time pre-Tivo, some of those reruns were "new" to me. That's probably unavoidable.

What really bugs me is when, instead of rerunning, they just take the show off and replace it with yet another crappy (un)reality show! That does happen far more than it used to. Also, their habit of cancelling shows too quickly, and replacing those shows with still more crap.



And when you run consecutive weeks of reruns AFTER the season is over, as was done in the old days, if you missed a series during first run, you used to be able to watch many of the episodes IN ORDER, during rerun season. Now it is so convoluted, I don't even bother watching ANY reruns any longer. Thus, shows like The West Wing, I have never gotten into, because it was on opposite something else I watched in that time slot (pre-TiVo) and it was difficult to catch up on those episodes in order.

__________________
Steve

POST #50 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 02:21 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

quote:
Originally posted by steveknj
No, only ADVERTISERS would complain about #3.

I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.
quote:
Thus, shows like The West Wing, I have never gotten into, because it was on opposite something else I watched in that time slot (pre-TiVo) and it was difficult to catch up on those episodes in order.

You should really start catching this show on Bravo. The first few seasons of The West Wing are some of the best television ever produced and you can see it in order, for free on Bravo. Take advantage!

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #51 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

ADG is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 02:35 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for ADG Visit ADG's homepage! Find more posts by ADG Add ADG to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
ADG
Allan

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 374

Plus, they just started rerunning West Wing in order from the first episode this week. They are only up to the 4th episode tonight.

__________________
Allan
Forum Admin
TweakXP.com

POST #52 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

paulfife is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 04:05 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for paulfife Find more posts by paulfife Add paulfife to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
paulfife
Senior Member

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 362

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.


I think the point being made is that the sweeps are really an artificial method of generating the rates. The advertizing rates should be based on how popular a show is in general, not just during a few fixed weeks of the year. Networks going to non-regular seasons is probably going to change this eventually.

POST #53 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 04:36 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

quote:
Originally posted by paulfife
I think the point being made is that the sweeps are really an artificial method of generating the rates. The advertizing rates should be based on how popular a show is in general, not just during a few fixed weeks of the year. Networks going to non-regular seasons is probably going to change this eventually.

I totally agree with this. I would love to see the sweeps periods go away. I'm not totally sure why advertisers put up with them since it creates artificial viewer numbers for the rest of the season.

All I was trying to say is that until things change (i.e. the length of the season, the sweeps periods, the way ratings are measured, the way ad rates are generated, etc.), no network is going end a show's run before May (if the show gets good ratings).

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #54 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

aepman is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 11:03 AM
Click Here to See the Profile for aepman Find more posts by aepman Add aepman to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
aepman
Member

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Grayson, KY, USA
Posts: 97

The AITF model is exactly how I remember things being when I was a kid. I remember new shows pretty much every week, except when preempted by specials around the holidays. Sometime around March, they would start over again from the beginning.

I don't think its the scheduling that is hurting network television, though (other than potentially loosing a good show when they cancel shows without giving them a chance). Back in a day, the networks had no competition except for each other. Also, there were no Tivos, VCRs, or channels from other time zones either. If you watched a show at 8pm on Monday, you missed the other 2 shows that were on at that time. When reruns started in March, you could pick one of them if you wanted to (but were probably just as likely to watch the rerun of the show you normally watched).

Now, with Tivo and Satellite TV, I watch all kinds of shows that are normally on at the same time. I also have a LOT more choices (not necessarily better, but more at any rate).

The AITF model would not help the networks that much. They probably would have a few shows do better since the consistency would allow an audience to grow, but they would be in a world of hurt come March. The 22-24 episodes per 52-week year is going to continue to hurt them. Of course, any more episodes (or other shows to fill in those weeks) would cost them more money. So, we see more low production cost shows (reality tv).

Todd

POST #55 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Steveknj is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 07:24 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for Steveknj Find more posts by Steveknj Add Steveknj to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Steveknj
TiVo Forum Special Member

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1111

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I think you meant that the advertisers would complain about #1. IMO, the advertisers would be thrilled with #1. The nets try to put their best programming on during the sweeps in order to get the best ratings. These ratings periods set the advertising rates for the following year. If they ended shows before May sweeps, their may ratings would likely go down and the ad rates would go down as well. Advertisers would love it, but it will never happen. This is why I said that option will never work in today's world.

You should really start catching this show on Bravo. The first few seasons of The West Wing are some of the best television ever produced and you can see it in order, for free on Bravo. Take advantage!



What I really meant to say, is that only advertisers care about the ratings during sweeps week, while viewers could care less. And that is ONLY because that is the time they base their rates. But don't these ad execs see that ratings are artificially skewed during that week? If NBC puts Friends on 3 and 4 times during that week (with only 1 new episode), then how do they get an accurate feeling for what the show is worth? Also, how do they set rates for the shows that are pulled during sweeps, but are shown before and after. Ed comes to mind as at least in 2 of the 3 seasons, the show was pulled during sweeps.

__________________
Steve

POST #56 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

3D is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 10:04 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for 3D Find more posts by 3D Add 3D to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
3D
Member

Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Plantation, FL.
Posts: 25

I agree that it can be annoying when shows are preempted for several weeks at a time in order to extend the season(I think Alias only had one episode in February). That said, I don't know that 24 is the best example of the problem. First, as has already been mentioned, unlike many shows which have only 22 episodes, it has 24. Second, I think the hiatus is more a matter of circumstances than an attempt to artificially extend the season. Unless I'm mistaken, the two hour editions of American Idol will begin in about two weeks. Whether you like Idol or not, it pulls in huge numbers for Fox, so preempting 24 was a no brainer. IIRC, 24's ratings received a huge benefit by having such a good lead in, which made it more likely to be picked up again. Therefore, while I'm frustrated by the long hiatus (especially when things are finally starting to get interesting), I'll take it if it increases the chances that a show that I like will get renewed.

POST #57 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 10:30 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

quote:
Originally posted by 3D
I think Alias only had one episode in February.

In ABC's defense, Alias was the unfortunate casualty of a very strange scheduling month.

Feb. 1 - Super Bowl - Not very often the SB is in February (and sweeps didn't start until Feb. 5).
Feb. 8 - Golden Globes - Moved up due to early Oscars this year.
Feb. 15 - Original ep aired
Feb. 22 - Super Millionaire - ABC trying to juice up its sweeps ratings.
Feb. 29 - Academy Awards - First time ever these awards have been so early in the year.

I don't blame ABC for pulling Alias in any of those circumstances. The two biggest TV events of the year, another very popular awards show, and a ratings stunt. Alias doesn't have good enough ratings to compete with any of that and it would have been a waste of their episodes to air them opposite any of those.

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #58 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

devdogaz is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 10:44 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for devdogaz Find more posts by devdogaz Add devdogaz to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
devdogaz
Member in Law

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1847

I wonder if anyone else has the same feelings as I do about shows not running consecutively. I am actually glad when a show takes a week or two off. I have so many shows that I watch religiously that it's very hard to keep up. During sweeps months it gets pretty ridiculous. Once sweeps are over, I'm usually really glad for the time to catch up on the shows I'm behind on, and be able to do some other things in the evening besides veg in front of the TV.

__________________
"You don't own a TV? What's all your furniture pointed at?" Joey Tribbiani
"Can you taste the thumbtacks?" Ralph Wiggum

POST #59 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

allan is offline Old Post 02-27-2004 10:57 PM
Click Here to See the Profile for allan Find more posts by allan Add allan to your buddy list Show Printable Version Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
allan
Resident modern nut

Registered: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 2525

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I wonder if anyone else has the same feelings as I do about shows not running consecutively. I am actually glad when a show takes a week or two off. I have so many shows that I watch religiously that it's very hard to keep up. During sweeps months it gets pretty ridiculous. Once sweeps are over, I'm usually really glad for the time to catch up on the shows I'm behind on, and be able to do some other things in the evening besides veg in front of the TV.


These days, I don't have that many new shows to watch. At least 4 of my shows are dead or dying, and most of my SP's are old TVLand stuff. I wouldn't mind a break if there was more good stuff to fill the void.

__________________
My Tivo is too small!

Allan is probably right. Most likely he's wrong, but he's probably right. If he slips
me a fiver he can be 100% correct. - whoknows55

POST #60 | Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (4): « Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next »   Last Thread   Next Thread
>>> A bit of a rant <<<

TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
Search The Internet
 
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this thread

Forum Jump:
 
Search this Thread:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - TiVo Community Forum Archive 1 >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.8
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
(C)opyright - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not affiliated with TiVo Inc.
Page generated in 0.08672190 seconds (86.55% PHP - 13.45% MySQL) with 22 queries.


Spider History Index