Mario Batali

"hermit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

hermit said:

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 said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

hermit said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

hermit said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

You've got a point.

Besides the one on top of my head?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Dee Dee said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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)

Dee Dee said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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)

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:49:14 -0400, "Dee Dee" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 17:49:14 -0400, "Dee Dee" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Default User" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> 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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.