It's a watercooler show. We all have our opinions. I don't get the appeal of Grey's Anatomy, but millions and mllions of people watch it. The same for DWTS. I have tried several times to watch it, but I don't get the appeal. American Idol, however, I am always interested in.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by tvchtw:
quote:
Originally posted by galveston: Somebody help me. I'm still confused six years later.
What, exactly, is the appeal of American Idol? The person sings...Simon berates them....somebody wins and promptly distances himself/herself as far from American Idol as possible. That's pretty much still the entirety of the American Idol experience, yes? Is there something I missed?
Well I could say that about any show. Whats the deal with Lost, just a bunch of people stuck on an island trying to get off. (I am a fan of Lost btw, just using that as an example) Idol just has something that all other talent type shows lacks, its kind of unexplainable and you just kinda get it or you dont.
You're right but the problem with AI is that it's a huge succes. I wouldn't be surprised if AI would pull 15 million viewers, that's understandable. The mystery for me is why it pulls 30 million.
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Originally posted by galveston: Somebody help me. I'm still confused six years later.
What, exactly, is the appeal of American Idol? The person sings...Simon berates them....somebody wins and promptly distances himself/herself as far from American Idol as possible. That's pretty much still the entirety of the American Idol experience, yes? Is there something I missed?
Well, it was a surprise summer hit in 2002, and afterwards the format was mocked by EVERYONE. I think people tune in for different reasons. They tune in for the weirdos in the audition process, they tune in to hear what Simon is going to say, and they tune in to actually hear the amateurs sing. The success of Kelly Clarkson's first album (as in it didn't flop terribly) helped the show, but each season (until, really, last year), the show was able to develop a number of solid entertainers who connected with the audience and developed fan bases and characters over the season (unlike on Star Search, where you'd see them once, they'd win/lose, and you wouldn't see them again). The contestants kept the show engaging, while the wild success of a few Idol alums have kept it relevant. That the audience can vote for their favorite was original, in its time, for reality television in America (DWTS added viewer voting to its format after the summer season in 2005).
I don't doubt that many of you experts here could do a better job of programming the CW than the present regime does.
But: I don't see the point of moving CBS's loser shows over there. CBS's shows are designed for a different demographic, and they wouldn't work on the CW.
My suggestion to CBS would be to move it to cable and make it specifically a network for the 18-34's. I'd try to tune it so it would be upscale, too, in order to attract the 18-34s who gag on MTV and VH1. (There must be some.)
quote:
Originally posted by blackfury: Why doesn't some of CBS' loser shows move to the CW? THey would be huge winners by CW standards. Like give HIMYM, Rules of Engagement, Close to Home (which should not have been canceled), and the Unit to CW to help build their network rather than cancel them. I don't understand why they do not have better programming if they come from CBS. Give them a CSI too, like CSI: Chicago. The group of us here could fix the CW in a week!
I think of "Idol" as a sports league. You have the draft, the preseason, the season, the final four, and the championship game. It's fun following the ups and downs of the various contestants, and I also have fun trying to match my guess for who's voted off with what America thinks.
I honestly don't understand all the hostility some people here have toward the show. Geez! I never whine about all the comments about "Survivor" or especially "Amazing Race"--two shows I don't especially care for.
And anyway--a show that gave us Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, Fantasia, and Chris Daughtry can't be all bad.
Oh, and one more thing--I think one reason for the high ratings is that "Idol" contestants are on the Las Vegas sports books. I "bet" some viewers have $$ on the contestants.
So all and all, my feeling is "if you don't like it don't watch it."
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Well, it was a surprise summer hit in 2002, and afterwards the format was mocked by EVERYONE. I think people tune in for different reasons. They tune in for the weirdos in the audition process, they tune in to hear what Simon is going to say, and they tune in to actually hear the amateurs sing. The success of Kelly Clarkson's first album (as in it didn't flop terribly) helped the show, but each season (until, really, last year), the show was able to develop a number of solid entertainers who connected with the audience and developed fan bases and characters over the season (unlike on Star Search, where you'd see them once, they'd win/lose, and you wouldn't see them again). The contestants kept the show engaging, while the wild success of a few Idol alums have kept it relevant. That the audience can vote for their favorite was original, in its time, for reality television in America (DWTS added viewer voting to its format after the summer season in 2005).
If you'r not going to do a CSI:London or CSI:Australia, then doa small USA town/city. How about... CSI: Huntsville, AL CSI: Chatanooga, TN CSI: Des Moines
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: CSI Chicago! Alright!!!
quote:
Originally posted by blackfury: Why doesn't some of CBS' loser shows move to the CW? THey would be huge winners by CW standards. Like give HIMYM, Rules of Engagement, Close to Home (which should not have been canceled), and the Unit to CW to help build their network rather than cancel them. I don't understand why they do not have better programming if they come from CBS. Give them a CSI too, like CSI: Chicago. The group of us here could fix the CW in a week!
Originally posted by Marc Berman: Law & Order (Viewers: #1, 10.85 million; A18-49: #1, 3.1/ 8). Considering that Law & Order faced a repeat of CBS’ CSI: NY, the results could have actually been better.
The results of "American Idol" could have actually been been better. The results of anything could actually be better. They could actually be worse, too. In the case of everything that wasn't "Idol" or "Law & Order" last night, they were. "Law & Order" was the second-highest rated show of the night in both households and 18-49. For a show in its 118th season, that ain't nothing to sneeze at.
Originally posted by HeightsEye: I don't doubt that many of you experts here could do a better job of programming the CW than the present regime does.
But: I don't see the point of moving CBS's loser shows over there. CBS's shows are designed for a different demographic, and they wouldn't work on the CW.
My suggestion to CBS would be to move it to cable and make it specifically a network for the 18-34's. I'd try to tune it so it would be upscale, too, in order to attract the 18-34s who gag on MTV and VH1. (There must be some.)
quote:
Originally posted by blackfury: Why doesn't some of CBS' loser shows move to the CW? THey would be huge winners by CW standards. Like give HIMYM, Rules of Engagement, Close to Home (which should not have been canceled), and the Unit to CW to help build their network rather than cancel them. I don't understand why they do not have better programming if they come from CBS. Give them a CSI too, like CSI: Chicago. The group of us here could fix the CW in a week!
But I bet many of us could save CBS Corp and Warner Bros. some money by just putting CW out of its misery.
Originally posted by HeightsEye: I think of "Idol" as a sports league. You have the draft, the preseason, the season, the final four, and the championship game. It's fun following the ups and downs of the various contestants, and I also have fun trying to match my guess for who's voted off with what America thinks.
I honestly don't understand all the hostility some people here have toward the show. Geez! I never whine about all the comments about "Survivor" or especially "Amazing Race"--two shows I don't especially care for.
And anyway--a show that gave us Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, Fantasia, and Chris Daughtry can't be all bad.
Oh, and one more thing--I think one reason for the high ratings is that "Idol" contestants are on the Las Vegas sports books. I "bet" some viewers have $$ on the contestants.
So all and all, my feeling is "if you don't like it don't watch it."
quote:
Originally posted by TravisYanan: Well, it was a surprise summer hit in 2002, and afterwards the format was mocked by EVERYONE. I think people tune in for different reasons. They tune in for the weirdos in the audition process, they tune in to hear what Simon is going to say, and they tune in to actually hear the amateurs sing. The success of Kelly Clarkson's first album (as in it didn't flop terribly) helped the show, but each season (until, really, last year), the show was able to develop a number of solid entertainers who connected with the audience and developed fan bases and characters over the season (unlike on Star Search, where you'd see them once, they'd win/lose, and you wouldn't see them again). The contestants kept the show engaging, while the wild success of a few Idol alums have kept it relevant. That the audience can vote for their favorite was original, in its time, for reality television in America (DWTS added viewer voting to its format after the summer season in 2005).
Yeah but there's a huge difference: when i watch sports i don't watch the same game week after week.
True, but the CW would grow froma 2.3 million viewer average and a .9 demo rating to a 5 million average and a 1.8 demo rating.
They would start getting shows that have 6-7 million viewers, regularly. Then that could then roll into more eyes checking out shows like Smallville and Reaper.
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera: Even if they move those shows from CBS to the CW, they wouldn't bring along the ratings they had while airing on CBS. The CW has a far smaller reach, far smaller advertising platform, and the ratings of ANTM is about as high they can get without significantly altering who they are (stations, reach, etc).
Originally posted by TV-aholic: If you'r not going to do a CSI:London or CSI:Australia, then doa small USA town/city. How about... CSI: Huntsville, AL CSI: Chatanooga, TN CSI: Des Moines
quote:
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: CSI Chicago! Alright!!!
quote:
Originally posted by blackfury: Why doesn't some of CBS' loser shows move to the CW? THey would be huge winners by CW standards. Like give HIMYM, Rules of Engagement, Close to Home (which should not have been canceled), and the Unit to CW to help build their network rather than cancel them. I don't understand why they do not have better programming if they come from CBS. Give them a CSI too, like CSI: Chicago. The group of us here could fix the CW in a week!
How about we combine 2 shows and do CSI: Baywatch? They could be solving crimes on the beach. This way we would get to see babes in bikinis!
Originally posted by HeightsEye: I don't doubt that many of you experts here could do a better job of programming the CW than the present regime does.
But: I don't see the point of moving CBS's loser shows over there. CBS's shows are designed for a different demographic, and they wouldn't work on the CW.
Well, the thing is that the current CW programming dont work either.
The CW, to survive, may need to reinvent itself. This 13-21 demo programming is, for the most part, not working at all.
Let the CW become more like USA or TNT or even TBS (go all comedy).
Originally posted by HeightsEye: I think of "Idol" as a sports league. You have the draft, the preseason, the season, the final four, and the championship game. It's fun following the ups and downs of the various contestants, and I also have fun trying to match my guess for who's voted off with what America thinks.
I honestly don't understand all the hostility some people here have toward the show. Geez! I never whine about all the comments about "Survivor" or especially "Amazing Race"--two shows I don't especially care for.
And anyway--a show that gave us Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, Jennifer Hudson, Fantasia, and Chris Daughtry can't be all bad.
Oh, and one more thing--I think one reason for the high ratings is that "Idol" contestants are on the Las Vegas sports books. I "bet" some viewers have $$ on the contestants.
So all and all, my feeling is "if you don't like it don't watch it."
Yeah but there's a huge difference: when i watch sports i don't watch the same game week after week.
But to a non-sports fan, all the games do look alike (or so I am told).
If 5 years and 10 cycles isn't a sign of endurance, then please enlighten me and tell me what is...
5 years and 10 cycles of programming people actually watched?
If you mean Ostroff, yes, she's shown tons of endurance. She's survived the end of one network, and is well on her way to destroying another one. And we know why she's not fired--her loyalty to Les Moonves, and his loyalty to her. Admirable. But ultimately not helpful, to anyone but Ostroff herself.
quote:
No disrespect to you, and I mean that,
And no disrespect to you, whoever you are. I don't know why you feel like defending the indefensible, but I appreciate your willingness to do so by prating meaningless factoids as if they mean something. And I mean that.
quote:
but your post just seems like another typical attempt at bashing the CW, which seems to be the norm in these boards.
Right. Only here. Nowhere else. There have not been numerous articles in the trades about CW's dismal failure. There have not been public speculations as to how long Ostroff can last, or how long CW itself can remain viable. And CW isn't posting lower ratings than UPN did, back before Ostroff rendered it unviable. Not at all. Perish the thought.
Originally posted by TV-aholic: If you'r not going to do a CSI:London or CSI:Australia, then doa small USA town/city. How about... CSI: Huntsville, AL CSI: Chatanooga, TN CSI: Des Moines
How about we combine 2 shows and do CSI: Baywatch? They could be solving crimes on the beach. This way we would get to see babes in bikinis!
The CW, to survive, may need to reinvent itself. This 13-21 demo programming is, for the most part, not working at all.
Let the CW become more like USA or TNT or even TBS (go all comedy).
As I said recently (quite possibly not knowing what I'm talking about), the tanking economy is going to create a small window of opportunity for CW to go for people who have developed a taste for edgy cable programming, but don't want to shell out for cable anymore. There's a limit to how edgy a broadcast network can get, obviously--and clearly CW has no chance of taking HBO's audience. But they could go for USA's, TNT's, FX's, definitely. It's a long shot, but not out of the question. One complicating factor is the changeover to HD in a year's time, which will not affect people who have cable--and thus discourage people from getting rid of cable. Like I said, a very small window of opportunity.
But whatever avenue they want to try, the first order of the day is replacing the network head who led them to this dismal prospect. Ostroff has to go.
