Brad told you a couple of weeks ago about the new shows on The CW this fall. The network put aside Sunday nights in order to have Media Rights Capital program the night as it pleased, as an experiment. Now, the lineup that MRC has come up with has been released. The network has put all four shows into production immediately (no pilots) so they'll be ready for fall. The shows will run from 7pm to 10pm. Note: sorry Moonlight fans, your show didn't make it.
In Harm's Way: This reality show about people who have dangerous jobs (it's from the same guy who brings you Discovery's Dirty Jobs) got a 10 episode order from the network.
Valentine, Inc.: This is a comedy/drama from Kevin Murphy, who was a producer/writer on Reaper (also on The CW). It's about the modern day adventures of Aphrodite and her son Eros, who run a matchmaking business. Sounds like Cupid, maybe?
Easy Money: A drama about a family of loan sharks. From two people who used to work on The Sopranos.
Surviving Suburbia: A half hour sitcom that Kevin Abbott (who has written for The Golden Girls, Reba, Growing Pains, Roseanne, ALF, and was a producer on My Name Is Earl) wrote years ago, found, and decided to pitch again. 13 eps ordered.
Of course, reading the plot line of a TV show can be misleading. Even the flimsiest of a premise can be great with the right writing, cast, and production. Having said that, what show looks the most interesting to you?












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-27-2008 @ 3:06PM
Carissa said...
Not one of these shows looks interesting. Surprise!
If I had to choose, I'd say the show about loan sharks, but I still hate shows about criminals. Sick of the glorification. Overall, the lineup seems like a complete waste of time in my not so humble opinion.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 3:16PM
moreartplease said...
While Valentine, INC does have the same hook as Cupid, in some ways, it sounds like it will be focussed on a different dynamic. That is, Cupid was all about whether the guy was crazy or actually Cupid. This takes it as a given that the Gods walk among us. Tonally, it could be very different.
All of that being either here, there, or neither, that is the one I would choose to watch given no other info but its logline.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 3:27PM
Mel said...
Not surprisingly, they all sound like crap. But then again just about every show that airs now fits into that category. I guess I might as well remove that channel from my tv.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 3:42PM
0megapart!cle said...
Somebody forgot to close the italics tag! (On the bold, italics title of Surviving Suburbia, looks like)
Easy Money looks mildly interesting, at least. The rest, eh, I'll check out the pilot of Valentine and Suburbia, but expecting shit)
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 3:47PM
lucyfan62 said...
No MOONLIGHT...no interest.
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 11:49AM
didi said...
I am a fan of Moonlight and I want it back. Tired of gangsters, reality shows which are either violent or unrealistic and, in my opinion, not very entertaining!
5-27-2008 @ 4:29PM
RadioScott said...
Wow. A guy who wrote for ALF and Golden Girls created a show and couldn't sell it for years? How exciting. Maybe they can get some of the According to Jim writers on board.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 6:35PM
heinlein said...
For me, both Valentine, Inc. and Easy Money sounds like interesting shows, that could have a good storyline, and I plan to give them both a chance.
Reply
5-27-2008 @ 8:44PM
nschimpf said...
I'm glad the bad old days of syndicated-quality drivel like "Throb", "Time Trax", "Street Justice" and "She's the Sheriff" are returning thanks to Media Rights Capital. Seriously, this looks the primetime schedule of a bad indie station circa 1991. Better to give the time back to the affiliates for a movie night than air this stuff.
Reply
5-28-2008 @ 6:51AM
Argus said...
Coming next on the CW, our best idea ever: HEAVY METAL - THE SERIES!
Reply
5-30-2008 @ 11:49AM
didi said...
Want my Moonlight back! it is pure entertainment since it has action, drama, love, suspense all the elements to make a show, ingredients definitively lacking in a lot of present shows.
Reply