Uh oh now!!

11 minutes ago, Rmodelboy said:

Looks like Canada is back ahead of us. They showed a new episode instead of the clip show

Isn't this at least the 4th or 5th time this has happened? This never happens with Bold unless there's a news interruption and then it's rectified the next day so it must be a CBS Studios issue. At least Bell Media won't care anymore because they moved it out of the simulcast slot.

14 minutes ago, bongobong said:

Isn't this at least the 4th or 5th time this has happened? This never happens with Bold unless there's a news interruption and then it's rectified the next day so it must be a CBS Studios issue. At least Bell Media won't care anymore because they moved it out of the simulcast slot.

It's because of CBS (the network) not communicating things to Canada properly about the preemptions, due to them not producing a full 250 episodes/year. That's when it happened, but they're usually on top of fixing it.

25 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

It's because of CBS (the network) not communicating things to Canada properly about the preemptions, due to them not producing a full 250 episodes/year. That's when it happened, but they're usually on top of fixing it.

It's not the US network's responsibility, it's the production company's. Granted they are owned by the same entity in this case.

58 minutes ago, bongobong said:

It's not the US network's responsibility, it's the production company's. Granted they are owned by the same entity in this case.

But it's the network that decides when to preempt, not production, as already proven by previous preemptions. It's obvious Bell Media/E! either did not receive the "Inside Fairmont Crest" special or was not told when to air it. All they need to do is insert it into their schedule.

1 hour ago, bongobong said:

It's not the US network's responsibility, it's the production company's. Granted they are owned by the same entity in this case.

I know you have a bone to pick with this show's existence on general principle but finding a way to blame the preemptions on them strains credulity.

Did someone mention the lighting change or a new hire? That sunset lighting in last week's shows stood out for me.

Although, I would have preferred a new episode, I enjoyed today's show. They truly appear to be on big family. I really liked the Martin, Smitty and their kids little segment.

I want to say someone mentioned the lighting change as well. Which I agree with cuz everything looks so polished now IMHO.

28 minutes ago, Vee said:

Did someone mention the lighting change or a new hire? That sunset lighting in last week's shows stood out for me.

Yup the lighting has definitely gotten better, especially compared to the first few months. I will even add the camera work has improved too. Loving the changes to the show production wise.

54 minutes ago, Vee said:

Did someone mention the lighting change or a new hire? That sunset lighting in last week's shows stood out for me.

I did; when we swapped from Guza to Thompson, it shifted a bit more than it had prior.

4 hours ago, Vee said:

I know you have a bone to pick with this show's existence on general principle but finding a way to blame the preemptions on them strains credulity.

Where did I blame the preemptions on them? Obviously the network schedules, not the production company. But then they should alert their international partners. You don't think it's curious why this is happening repeatedly?

It's already been explained and yet, people actively choose not to listen to the 'why'. 🙄

12 minutes ago, bongobong said:

Where did I blame the preemptions on them? Obviously the network schedules, not the production company. But then they should alert their international partners. You don't think it's curious why this is happening repeatedly?

We know why the preemptions last year happened. But you're still claiming the production company/BTG is culpable.

8 minutes ago, Vee said:

We know why the preemptions last year happened. But you're still claiming the production company/BTG is culpable.

I've never claimed that. I'm not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue on your part or if you're being purposely deceptive but we were discussing altering the Canadian companies about the preemption not the preempitons themselves.