Originally posted by whatsonpop: I think any show that last 10 years in the top 5 and has a finale watched by over 50 million people is a massive hit.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by Zitrone:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show.
Whatever you think of the show, it was a massive hit, and Seinfeld too, of the kind all networks fail to reproduce now. Even 2 1/2 Men is nowhere near that level of success (taking into account lower viewers in general).
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
It was the #1 most watched show on TV in its 8th season. I'd call that a massive hit. It won the Emmy for best series that year as well.
Great for them, neither means bobkes as far as watchability goes. So Friends was a massive hit, which means it had to target the lower common denominator and become utterly commodified. And we all know what winning an Emmy wins when it comes to quality - nada (James Spader, that's all I've gotta say).
I really enjoyed it. It's by the same author who wrote Late Shift about the Leno-Letterman debacle. Very insightful.
quote:
Originally posted by joliesse:
quote:
I just read a book called Desperate Networks and it actually goes into detail about why Zucker paid them so much. They basically did that to keep their "Must-see thursday night" brand alive.
We have that book here on CD. Is it interesting? Or will it put me to sleep as I work...
pisherafferty-free since 2008
Posts: 414 | Location: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: 01 December 2006
Ya i posted that Sarah Connor was renewed yesterday.
Dude, I TOLD you we knew about that over a week ago. I was talking about Gossip Girl. Gossip Girl is renewed for a second season. On CW. That's not a scoop, CW announced it March 3rd. FULL SEASON pick-up. First full season pick-up to be announced this season. Have there been any others since?
So clearly this means Gossip Girl must be a huge success, and CW is incredibly pleased with its ratings, right?
No
It should be canceled.
All it is, is sex, teen drinking and more sex there no use for a show like that.
Friends Averages for new episodes and season ranking:
Season 1 - 24.8 million Season Rank:8 Season 2 - 31.7 million Season Rank:3 Season 3 - 26.3 million Season Rank:4 Season 4 - 25.0 million Season Rank:4 Season 5 - 24.7 million Season Rank:2 Season 6 - 22.6 million Season Rank:5 Season 7 - 22.1 million Season Rank:5 Season 8 - 26.7 million Season Rank:1 Season 9 - 24.0 million Season Rank:2 Season 10 -26.9 million Season Rank:3
All it is, is sex, teen drinking and more sex there no use for a show like that.
Well, I think the whole network should be canceled, but really, there's no use for television itself, when you get right down to it. We could all live without it, and did, for thousands of years. We'd probably live better without it. But here it is, anyway. And Gossip Girl has a full second season renewal, whether we like it or not. And that means second season renewals don't prove squat about a show's success.
Originally posted by whatsonpop: I think any show that last 10 years in the top 5 and has a finale watched by over 50 million people is a massive hit.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by Zitrone:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show.
Whatever you think of the show, it was a massive hit, and Seinfeld too, of the kind all networks fail to reproduce now. Even 2 1/2 Men is nowhere near that level of success (taking into account lower viewers in general).
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
It was the #1 most watched show on TV in its 8th season. I'd call that a massive hit. It won the Emmy for best series that year as well.
It was number 1 just a season. And i see those season averages i still don't think it's a massive hit. I wouldn't call GA a massive hit and a couple of years ago was getting the same numbers almost. And remember the numbers are lower now than 10 years ago
Originally posted by robert: The only good thing in GG is Bell's voiceover. And i'm not kidding.
The latest episode did pull higher ratings than the previous 5 new episodes of Gossip Girl, though...and did so at a time of year when most shows are dropping. I think CW is happy with the return numbers and that the 'media blitz' (mostly free off the 'OMFG' controversy) worked.
The only good thing in GG is Bell's voiceover. And i'm not kidding.
I wouldn't know, but even her offscreen presence on the show probably costs it at least half a full percentage point in the demo. And I'm just partly kidding.
Originally posted by whatsonpop: I think any show that last 10 years in the top 5 and has a finale watched by over 50 million people is a massive hit.
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by Zitrone:
quote:
Originally posted by robert: Friend was a very unoriginal sitcom, it was very traditional in fact (remember Cheers?), i don't know what the critics were loving it so much. I never was a fan of the show.
Whatever you think of the show, it was a massive hit, and Seinfeld too, of the kind all networks fail to reproduce now. Even 2 1/2 Men is nowhere near that level of success (taking into account lower viewers in general).
Single-camera or 'sophistication' are not the problems.
Did i say it wasn't a hit? Although "massive hit" is a little exaggerated. It was getting 22-24 million viewers which isn't all that impressive. AI gets those numbers now when the ratings are lower than in 2000
It was the #1 most watched show on TV in its 8th season. I'd call that a massive hit. It won the Emmy for best series that year as well.
It was number 1 just a season. And i see those season averages i still don't think it's a massive hit. I wouldn't call GA a massive hit and a couple of years ago was getting the same numbers almost. And remember the numbers are lower now than 10 years ago
R u serious Friends was a huge hit.
I agree with u on some things.
But this one is just plain stupid.
You can't think thats not a hit and think your right.
Originally posted by robert: I wouldn't call GA a massive hit and a couple of years ago was getting the same numbers almost.
So, you basically think that there is less than one 'massive hit' per year on TV? Your definition of 'massive hit' is simply wrong (too high a bar). The top 5 ratings shows airing every year are all 'massive hits'.
Originally posted by total eclipse: I wouldn't put Seinfeld and Friends in the same category. Friends was aiming to a much broader audience than Seinfeld or Frasier. I always felt those two were layered, so some of the jokes aimed to the casual TV consumers, and some to a more sophisticated audience. This multi layered writing is also evident is currently airing sitcoms like HIMYM. Then, of course, you'd have things like "According to Jim" - what do you make of its (target) audience?
I agree with you that different kinds of shows have different layers.
I'd put HIMYM and BBT in the pool with Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H.
I'd put According to Jim in the pool with I Love Lucy, Three's Company, and King of Queens.
I'd put The Office in with Arrested Development, and Soap.
Well, you certainly made for LOL moment. You put 4 of the best comedies in the history of TV (Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H) in the same "pool" as 2 run of the mill garbage shows (HIMYM and BBT). Those 4 shows will always be remembered and shows in syndication, probably for the next 20 years. Meanwhile HIMYM and BBT will disappear very quickly and 1 year later no one but a scant few will even remember them. They are 2 garbage shows that don't even get good ratings.
Originally posted by robert: What can i say? I'm just not that intelligent to get The Office, for us stupid people it's easier ro watch crap sitcoms like BBT
I think comedies like the office r crap.
And r worthless to tv.
Nah its not worthless. It allows CBS and ABC to stay strong on Thursday by preventing NBC to put a true hit in the hour.
Originally posted by total eclipse: I wouldn't put Seinfeld and Friends in the same category. Friends was aiming to a much broader audience than Seinfeld or Frasier. I always felt those two were layered, so some of the jokes aimed to the casual TV consumers, and some to a more sophisticated audience. This multi layered writing is also evident is currently airing sitcoms like HIMYM. Then, of course, you'd have things like "According to Jim" - what do you make of its (target) audience?
I agree with you that different kinds of shows have different layers.
I'd put HIMYM and BBT in the pool with Seinfeld, Cheers, Frasier, and M*A*S*H.
I'd put According to Jim in the pool with I Love Lucy, Three's Company, and King of Queens.
I'd put The Office in with Arrested Development, and Soap.
I'd take Jim out of the Three's Company, Lucy, and KoQ pool and throw it in with stuff like Happy Hour, War at Home, Listen Up, and Cavement: down right awful.
If that is the pool for down right awful shows, than HIMYM, BBT, 2 1/2 Men, and ROE also belong in that same grouping.
