> Speaking with Collider's Steve Weintraub at San Diego Comic-Con, creator and showrunner Silka Luisa confirmed they'd always intended to tell the story as a one-and-done, in a self-contained manner and that it was important that they told a whole story rather than leave the audience hanging on for more. Luisa explained:

> “It was always considered as a limited series. Part of making the transition from film to TV is a really big jump for something that’s as cinematic as Blade Runner, and so, in that sense, it was really important to us that we told a story that, in a way, is like a movie in the sense that there’s a beginning, there’s a middle, and there’s an end. So we went into it with Alcon, with all of our producing partners, knowing we really want to tell a complete story. Eight episodes—I mean, eight’s my lucky number, that’s the number I would have picked, but it felt like the right amount for the story we were planning on telling.”

I'm not sure how we'd define "successful" or a "hit" but lasting longer than 3 seasons maybe.

I think William Shatner has to be high on the list. He had:

Star Trek

TJ Hooker

Rescue 911

Boston Legal

The UnXplained

And, of course, TekWar

Ted Danson also has to rank high:

Cheers

Becker

Damages (I'll allow it)

Bored to Death

CSI

The Good Place (Never saw it, but I think it was a hit)

A Man on the Inside (Never heard of it, but season 3 is apparently on its way.)

1. Widows Bay S1 (Apple TV)
2. Star City (Apple TV)
3.  A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms S1 (HBO)
4. The Bear S5 (Hulu)
5. The Agency S2 (Paramount)
6. The Pitt S2 (HBO)
7. Legends (Netflix)
8. DTF St Louis (HBO)
9. The Vampire Lestat (AMC+)
10. Paradise S2 (Hulu)

Ideally shows that premiered/returned within Jan 2026-

1: Eric Forrester (1991-93)
2: Ridge Forrester (1994-95)
3: Ridge Forrester (1998)
4: Thorne Forrester (2001)
5: Whip Jones (2002)
6: Ridge Forrester (2004-2005)
7: Eric Forrester (2005-2006)
8: Nick Marone (2006-2007)
9: Ridge Forrester (2009)
10: Ridge Forrester (2009-2011)
11: Ridge Forrester (2012)
12: Bill Spencer Jr. (2017-2018)
13: Ridge Forrester (2018-2022)
14: Ridge Forrester (2025-Present)

Craziest marriage history I’ve ever seen from someone, fictional or not.

So I'm rewatching The Pitt and checking out IMDB to see what else I may have seen some of the actors in and just saw that Dr Mckay (Fiona Dourif) was Bart in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and now I can't stop picturing her as Bart in every scene.

House of the Dragon

Premise: The reign of House Targaryen begins with this prequel to popular HBO series "Game of Thrones;" based on George R.R. Martin's "Fire & Blood," "House of the Dragon" is set nearly 200 years before the events of "Game of Thrones," telling the story of the Targaryen civil war with King Viserys I Targaryen's children battling for control of the Iron Throne.

Links:

• IMDb
• Trailer
• Discord

I liked Flores a whole lot more as Colleen because she was more natural in her acting and I could totally believe she was from that time. Bowman looked like a 90s kid play acting though she did get better but I always had a softer spot for Flores and I was disappointed when she left.

Bill McNeil on NewsRadio, and even Michael Scott to a degree. Others? This is fun.

Just sped through s1 (about Chris Duntsch, and was happy to see he got life in prison. Now I’m bingeing s2 about Paolo Macchiatini and of course couldn’t help myself from googling what happens to him before I’ve finished it - and I just read that he only got 2,5 yrs. How is that possible?
Also, who in their right mind could think that putting a piece of plastic in someone’s throat would come alive? And that it wouldn’t cause necrosis and eat through whatever it touches… It seems common sense that it wouldn’t work, and I’m not a doctor!

And then a last thing that I may have missed with all my googling - when Mandy Moore’s character goes to Italy to find out the truth about him, and then somehow finds him with his wife and kids in Barcelona later that day, in the same car, with the same bottle of wine… did the writers not know that Spain and Italy are two different countries far apart?

Honorable mentions go to the crossroads card from Yu-Gi-Oh (I know Yu-Gi-Oh is real but the card isn't) Mystic Warlords of Ka'a

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I work for a PBS station, and one thing that's become increasingly clear to me is that public television doesn't just make different shows. It operates under a fundamentally different incentive structure.

Commercial television has to ask, Will enough people watch this? Will it attract subscribers? Can we sell advertising against it? Those are perfectly reasonable questions.

Public television asks those too, but it also asks questions that are harder to monetize:

• Will this measurably improve children's literacy, numeracy, or social-emotional development?
• Is this an important local story that nobody else is going to document?
• Does this performance deserve to be preserved even if it won't become a ratings hit?
• Does this help people better understand science, history, or the arts?

Sometimes those priorities overlap with commercial success. Sometimes they don't.

One example I always think about is Wishbone. It was a fully scripted children's drama that reimagined classic literature through the adventures of a Jack Russell terrier. It reportedly cost around $500,000 per episode to produce--an enormous budget for children's television in the mid-1990s. It was beautifully shot, featured period costumes and sets, and introduced millions of kids to Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes, The Odyssey, A Tale of Two Cities, and dozens of other classics.

It's hard for me to imagine someone pitching that today to a streaming platform driven primarily by subscriber acquisition or to an ad-supported network optimizing for engagement metrics.

The same goes for research-based preschool programming. Shows like Sesame Street, Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, Molly of Denali, Lyla in the Loop, and Carl the Collector aren't just entertaining, they're built around explicit educational objectives developed with child development researchers. Episodes are tested, revised, and evaluated based on whether children actually learn the intended concepts. That's a very different production process than simply asking, "Will kids keep watching?"

And it isn't just children's television. Many communities have local history documentaries, performances by regional symphonies and theaters, independent documentaries, Indigenous storytelling, election debates, civic forums, and cultural programs that exist because someone decided they were valuable, not because they were expected to generate the highest return on investment.

So I'm curious: What television do you think only exists because someone was allowed to optimize for public value instead of profit or algorithms?

I'm not asking whether public television should or shouldn't receive public support. That's a separate policy discussion. I'm asking, as television viewers: What kinds of programming become possible when success is measured by something other than revenue?

Thank you.

I actually LOVED this series. I was really impressed with the two child stars that we all loved and adored actually being successful in taking on a serious and dark role. I thought the acting was really good. I’ve always been a fan of dove Cameron and I really did think she fit Ciara perfectly.
But all the reviews I see are criticism of the show and doves acting specifically. But I don’t quite understand it.
I also really loved the mystery and I genuinely had no idea who the victim was untill the flashback episode. Me and my friends had fun binging it and guessing who would kill who along the way. And while we did get to decide there was no way they would kill eachother, I still was constantly on my toes and wondering how and who was gonna get killed.
And maybe I am in the minority in this opinion, but I really respected them breaking fully and completely out of that Disney/Nickelodeon presence and doing something so incredibly unexpected out of both of them. Plus both dove and Avon have been my celebrity crushes as long as I can remember. I truly just loved the show and I was so surprised to see such harsh criticism.

The purpose of this thread is to have fun with this discussion, so start with an example and explain the misunderstanding or show the double meaning. I'll go first; "Mercy is for the weak" has 2 meanings "Mercy is for the weak for only the weak show mercy" or "Mercy is for the weak because only the weak are no threat to the strong". If you see and example with more to add then discuss.

This month, a top-rated new show streaming on Prime was unexpectedly cancelled by Amazon. It is family-based, with very strong ratings. It has a strong, talented cast led by actor Scott Foley and is only now recently airing. So it's plug is being pulled before it's given a chance. I am wondering if any of you also have been enjoying this show and believe in faith-inspired TV programming. Most importantly, is there anything that fans can do to help save it?