Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?

"hermit" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
> Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?

He still has a re-reun on Monday mornings EST about 10am.
Dee Dee

On Oct 8, 3:46 am, hermit > wrote:
> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
> Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?

The Food Network had to make room for more shows about diners,
competitions, and other fluff to attract a viewer base that is giving
up
cooking.

Cindy Hamilton

hermit wrote:

>
> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
> Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?

FN told him that they weren't going to renew the contract on the old
reruns of Molto Mario. He got in a snit and said that if they did that
he wouldn't do Iron Chef. They said ok.

Fairly dumb on both sides, dumber on Mario's if you ask me.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> hermit wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
>> Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?
>
> FN told him that they weren't going to renew the contract on the old
> reruns of Molto Mario. He got in a snit and said that if they did that
> he wouldn't do Iron Chef. They said ok.
>
> Fairly dumb on both sides, dumber on Mario's if you ask me.

> Brian
>

I wonder if that is why Alton Brown had that program last night about the
"Next Iron Chef."

I think it was dumber on food network's part not to renew the contract on
the old reruns of Molto Mario. I'm still watching them, loads of which I've
never seen; surely there are other people who are just discovering Mario.

Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants and books.
(I just bought an older published book of his the other day.) Who needs to
be connected to a failing network!
Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > hermit wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
> > > Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?
> >
> > FN told him that they weren't going to renew the contract on the old
> > reruns of Molto Mario. He got in a snit and said that if they did
> > that he wouldn't do Iron Chef. They said ok.
> >
> > Fairly dumb on both sides, dumber on Mario's if you ask me.

> I wonder if that is why Alton Brown had that program last night about
> the "Next Iron Chef."

I'm sure that's all part of it.

> I think it was dumber on food network's part not to renew the
> contract on the old reruns of Molto Mario. I'm still watching them,
> loads of which I've never seen; surely there are other people who are
> just discovering Mario.

What are the ratings though, compared to what they cost? I don't know,
but if they could make more money running those then I'm sure they
would.

> Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants and
> books. (I just bought an older published book of his the other day.)
> Who needs to be connected to a failing network! Dee Dee

But being on primetime Food Network is free publicity for all that. To
throw that way over those old reruns makes little sense.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Dee Dee wrote:

> I wonder if that is why Alton Brown had that program last night about the
> "Next Iron Chef."
>
> I think it was dumber on food network's part not to renew the contract on
> the old reruns of Molto Mario. I'm still watching them, loads of which I've
> never seen; surely there are other people who are just discovering Mario.
>
> Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants and books.
> (I just bought an older published book of his the other day.) Who needs to
> be connected to a failing network!
> Dee Dee

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I can't figure out why
FoodTV doesn't seem to notice or care how bad they've gotten?
Mario B. is a great teacher. He did have a show on FoodTV where he went
around Italy with a really annoying sidekick foil "Rooney" (?) which
basically ruined the show for me. I'd love to see him alone do food in
Italy... leave the cheesy "FoodTV" style gimmicks out of it please!

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>
> What are the ratings though, compared to what they cost? I don't know,
> but if they could make more money running those then I'm sure they
> would.
>
>> Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants and
>> books. (I just bought an older published book of his the other day.)
>> Who needs to be connected to a failing network! Dee Dee
>
> But being on primetime Food Network is free publicity for all that. To
> throw that way over those old reruns makes little sense.

> Brian

You've got a point. But maybe Mario feels that it's too close to being free
for THEM. Those re-runs IMO are priceless, Maybe that's what they want,
too much for too little.

I understand Mario is a good business man. Perhaps foodnetwork will change
their mind. Although if it's up to that p-p-p-person, Gordon, any good deal
for either Mario or the network will probably go down the tubes; if he's
anything like what he acts ...... Geez! They ought to have someone like
Coliccho (sp?) running the network. Well, anyway, he appears to have a head
on his shoulders.

Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What are the ratings though, compared to what they cost? I don't
> > know, but if they could make more money running those then I'm sure
> > they would.
> >
> > > Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants
> > > and books. (I just bought an older published book of his the
> > > other day.) Who needs to be connected to a failing network! Dee
> > > Dee
> >
> > But being on primetime Food Network is free publicity for all that.
> > To throw that way over those old reruns makes little sense.


> You've got a point.

Besides the one on top of my head?

> But maybe Mario feels that it's too close to
> being free for THEM. Those re-runs IMO are priceless, Maybe that's
> what they want, too much for too little.

I'm not sure what is "free" for FN. They pay Mario to be on Iron Chef.
They've paid for repeated showing of Molto Mario.

> I understand Mario is a good business man. Perhaps foodnetwork will
> change their mind.

I think "Next Iron Chef" shows that they've decided to go another route.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Goomba38 wrote:

> Dee Dee wrote:
>
> > I wonder if that is why Alton Brown had that program last night
> > about the "Next Iron Chef."
> >
> > I think it was dumber on food network's part not to renew the
> > contract on the old reruns of Molto Mario. I'm still watching
> > them, loads of which I've never seen; surely there are other
> > people who are just discovering Mario.
> >
> > Mario doesn't need food network; he's got a gzillian restaurants
> > and books. (I just bought an older published book of his the other
> > day.) Who needs to be connected to a failing network! Dee Dee
>
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I can't figure out why
> FoodTV doesn't seem to notice or care how bad they've gotten? Mario
> B. is a great teacher. He did have a show on FoodTV where he went
> around Italy with a really annoying sidekick foil "Rooney" (?) which
> basically ruined the show for me. I'd love to see him alone do food
> in Italy... leave the cheesy "FoodTV" style gimmicks out of it please!

The answer is, "no". They're in the business to make money, not run
educational TV. That's what PBS is for. If FN could make more money
with stand-up cooking shows, they would. That's what they started with,
because that's all they could afford. It's about the cheapest
television around.





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>
>> But maybe Mario feels that it's too close to
>> being free for THEM. Those re-runs IMO are priceless, Maybe that's
>> what they want, too much for too little.
>
> I'm not sure what is "free" for FN. They pay Mario to be on Iron Chef.
> They've paid for repeated showing of Molto Mario.
> >
> Brian
>


Maybe my sentence would be more comprehensible if there were hyphens.

" ... too-close-to-being-free for THEM." (Too few bucks/next-to-nothing in
his mind.)

Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you say,
perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his re-runs) is/are worth
more than they were previously.

Dee Dee
Negotiator for the fat one.

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > But maybe Mario feels that it's too close to
> > > being free for THEM. Those re-runs IMO are priceless, Maybe
> > > that's what they want, too much for too little.
> >
> > I'm not sure what is "free" for FN. They pay Mario to be on Iron
> > Chef. They've paid for repeated showing of Molto Mario.

>
> Maybe my sentence would be more comprehensible if there were hyphens.
>
> " ... too-close-to-being-free for THEM." (Too few
> bucks/next-to-nothing in his mind.)
>
> Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
> say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his re-runs)
> is/are worth more than they were previously.

Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
them. I don't know if he has a market or not.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>> Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
>> say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his re-runs)
>> is/are worth more than they were previously.
>
> Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
> them. I don't know if he has a market or not.
>

> Brian


I can only surmise that there might come a time in life that principle (not
principal) is more important.

Say, if you (a millionaire many times over) had something that was worth a
million dollars (and it was documented that it was worth a million dollars)
and someone wanted it for $10,000, would you sit on it or sell it for
$10,000.

I'd sit on it! Now whether this falls under "principle" or not to others,
but ...
Dee Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

>
> "Default User" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
> > > say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his
> > > re-runs) is/are worth more than they were previously.
> >
> > Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
> > them. I don't know if he has a market or not.

> I can only surmise that there might come a time in life that
> principle (not principal) is more important.
>
> Say, if you (a millionaire many times over) had something that was
> worth a million dollars (and it was documented that it was worth a
> million dollars) and someone wanted it for $10,000, would you sit on
> it or sell it for $10,000.

That's an individual, who can make that sort of decision. A corporation
has a fiduciary duty to the stock holders.





Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:49:14 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
wrote:

>
>"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>>> Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
>>> say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his re-runs)
>>> is/are worth more than they were previously.
>>
>> Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
>> them. I don't know if he has a market or not.
>>
>
>> Brian
>
>
>I can only surmise that there might come a time in life that principle (not
>principal) is more important.
>
> Say, if you (a millionaire many times over) had something that was worth a
>million dollars (and it was documented that it was worth a million dollars)
>and someone wanted it for $10,000, would you sit on it or sell it for
>$10,000.
>
>I'd sit on it! Now whether this falls under "principle" or not to others,
>but ...
>Dee Dee
>

It is only worth a million dollars the day someone come up and offers
to actually pay that much.

Things are only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> Dee Dee wrote:
>
>>
>> "Default User" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
>> > > say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his
>> > > re-runs) is/are worth more than they were previously.
>> >
>> > Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
>> > them. I don't know if he has a market or not.
>
>> I can only surmise that there might come a time in life that
>> principle (not principal) is more important.
>>
>> Say, if you (a millionaire many times over) had something that was
>> worth a million dollars (and it was documented that it was worth a
>> million dollars) and someone wanted it for $10,000, would you sit on
>> it or sell it for $10,000.
>
> That's an individual, who can make that sort of decision. A corporation
> has a fiduciary duty to the stock holders.
>

> Brian

I think you're moving off-point in the discussion, as I was answering the
statement as to whether he had a market or not or if he wanted to market his
product somewhere else. We were talking here in the last part about the
market value of Mario's property to someone else; not the fiduciary duty to
the stock holders.

As to fn's fiduciary duty, they have made the decision that his re-runs will
not make them money. But IMO, I think the real answer is that they have
made the decision that his re-runs will not make them 'enough' money. I
think this is more of the purvasive rule running through most negotiations
nowadays. IOW, it's not worth the effort, we want to make more money off
something else. Now let me see .....

BTW, I'm ****ed about the "Next Iron Chef" which I just finished watching.
What camera work, geez, my head and eyes are about ready to pop from that
crazy camera work. For once, I'd like to get a look at that fish, beef, or
whatever; it passed by the camera so damned fast I couldn't tell what it
was. I don't usually use "Tears," but I headed for the medicine cabinet
after that show!

Dee Dee

"The Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:49:14 -0400, "Dee Dee" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Default User" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Also if fn have paid for repeated showing(s) of Molto Mario as you
>>>> say, perhaps now that the contract is up, he thinks he (his re-runs)
>>>> is/are worth more than they were previously.
>>>
>>> Well, they'd be worth more if someone else were willing to pay for
>>> them. I don't know if he has a market or not.
>>>
>>
>>> Brian
>>
>>
>>I can only surmise that there might come a time in life that principle
>>(not
>>principal) is more important.
>>
>> Say, if you (a millionaire many times over) had something that was worth
>> a
>>million dollars (and it was documented that it was worth a million
>>dollars)
>>and someone wanted it for $10,000, would you sit on it or sell it for
>>$10,000.
>>
>>I'd sit on it! Now whether this falls under "principle" or not to others,
>>but ...
>>Dee Dee
>>
>
> It is only worth a million dollars the day someone come up and offers
> to actually pay that much.
>
> Things are only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
> --
> Susan N.

I guess if somebody doesn't want to sell a Van Gogh, it's worthless.
I suppose you could justify that and say that the last person who bought it
paid such-and-such, so it is worth 'something.'
Same goes for most everything.
Right!
Dee Dee

"hermit" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps this has already been discussed, but does anyone know why
> Mario is gone from the Food TV Network?

It is all part of their plan, to get away from cooking shows and focus more
on entertainment that involves food. That is why you have whole shows
devoted to pie eating contests, the history of the gummy bear, chili
cookoffs and Jell-O wrestling. And then we get to watch Giadia have
multiple orgasms while gnoshing a plate of food that might look good but
nobody is going to share the recipe with you and Sara Lee who shares her
barbecue sauce recipe consisting of 1 pound of butter, a bottle of ketchup,
liquid smoke and used coffee grounds.

What little cooking is done is the likes of Sara Lee and Rachel Ray who
teach you the joys of things like canned chili, cooking with Kool Aid,
pre-made green salads with bottled dressing, and 1000 things you can do with
hamburger helper that you never imagined.

I still say that the people they are trying to attract, ie people with no
time at all to cook, won't have time for their shows either.

Dee Dee wrote:

> I think you're moving off-point in the discussion, as I was answering
> the statement as to whether he had a market or not or if he wanted to
> market his product somewhere else. We were talking here in the last
> part about the market value of Mario's property to someone else; not
> the fiduciary duty to the stock holders.

Ah. Well, I'm not sure that there's any market outside of perhaps DVDs
for old Molto Mario episodes.

> As to fn's fiduciary duty, they have made the decision that his
> re-runs will not make them money. But IMO, I think the real answer
> is that they have made the decision that his re-runs will not make
> them 'enough' money. I think this is more of the purvasive rule
> running through most negotiations nowadays. IOW, it's not worth the
> effort, we want to make more money off something else. Now let me
> see .....

Yes, if they can make more money with (don't hate me) Sandra Lee, then
that's the way they'll go.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)