90210 - naturally the second week would drop, as most series, new or old do. However, there may be several factors as to why it lost the viewers it did. First, as mentioned, it was pre-empted (again) in the nation's third largest market: Chicago. Surely, there were a few viewers in the Windy City who wanted to watch the series in its normal time period. Viewers are quite savvy these days and may realize that this episode will re-air on Wednesday and decided to check out the competition and wait until Wednesday to watch the episode. Lastly, there was more intense competition last night than last week. CBS's "Big Brother 10" was on at 8:00 p.m. instead of the normal 9:00 p.m. and since BB usually draws an audience younger than the typical CBS viewer, perhaps BB took some viewers away from 90210. Also, the same could be said for "Wipeout" on ABC, "Fringe" on Fox, and even "Secret Life of the American Teenager" on cable's ABC Family.
Fringe - we won't know for sure how this freshman offering will perform until it airs in its normal time period after "House", as it will next week. It is silly to write off the series after just one week, especially since it aired out of its normal time period with only local affiliate lead-ins.
CW - Last week people were saying that the CW is back from the dead and now people are ready to bury it all over again just because 90210 had an expected drop in viewership. Wait for the viewership for Wednesdays repeat to be factored in and for the schedule to settle down into its regular fall appearance before grabbing a shovel.
Bill Engvall Show - 10 episodes for a season is not unusual for a cable series. The series only averaged about that number for its first and second season. The difference with "House of Payne" is that that series was ordered for 100 episodes before filming started on the first episode. The two sitcoms cannot be compared because of that when it comes to future syndication or episode totals.
Originally posted by metal: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Privileged.
If it keeps those ratings I think CW would keep it over Reaper.
I don't see why they couldn't keep both. I think OTH is about on its last season. Creatively how much longer than these shenanigans go on? Plus with Smallville exiting, that opens a slot on Thursday and I don't see Privileged leading off Thursdays. I would think they would also want to put Stylista on eventually as a midseason filler for Top Model. Perhaps run a season in January and then in the summer if things go well. 90210 regardless of how far it drops at this point, probably won't do any worse than Gossip Girl and that sort of seems to be the bar for them right now.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: Cdub proved that was bogus last week. GG, OTH, 90210, and Top Model likely debuted to higher numbers than they would've gotten during the regular premiere week.
The early launch has helped CW for now, but it may hurt them once they have to go to reruns while the other nets are in first run. The idea of the early launch was mostly in the hopes of getting a few non-CW viewers to sample the shows. Meanwhile, the early launch has not helped FOX, but may help them in the long run since they have lots of midseason stuff and can avoid going to excess reruns later on.
Originally posted by metal: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Privileged.
If it keeps those ratings I think CW would keep it over Reaper.
I don't see why they couldn't keep both.
Exactly. CW needs to keep as many shows as possible. Eventually, they may even have enough first run programming to fill a schedule at the start of the season...and maybe even have a few midseason shows waiting in the wings.
Originally posted by metal: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Privileged.
If it keeps those ratings I think CW would keep it over Reaper.
I don't see why they couldn't keep both.
Exactly. CW needs to keep as many shows as possible. Eventually, they may even have enough first run programming to fill a schedule at the start of the season...and maybe even have a few midseason shows waiting in the wings.
Exactly and they should be working overtime here trying to secure a few midseason shows, even cheap reality filler that will do better than repeats of their highly serialized Monday and Tuesday night shows. Using Reaper for repeats on Thursday is a good idea. They'll also need reality to fill on Wednesday and perhaps they can come up with a comedy or two to air as well.
Originally posted by Obveeus: Meanwhile, the early launch has not helped FOX, but may help them in the long run since they have lots of midseason stuff and can avoid going to excess reruns later on.
I agree with your argument for the most part, pisher - perhaps FOX pushed the JJ Abrams thing too far.
He's JJ Abrams, not Alfred Freakin' Hitchcock.
quote:
I disagree that he's not a particularly great writer or director, however.
I don't think he's even slightly great, but you may be using the word in a more forgiving context.
quote:
He wrote and directed the pilot episode of LOST, both Emmy-nominated (and he won for direction.)
And that's one of my least favorite episodes of Lost--I only warmed up to that show during the subsequent episodes he didn't write or direct. The Emmy doesn't prove a thing in this context. Lost was a monster hit that season, and really shook things up--of course they were going to rain honors on Abrams as the frontman, but it's not really his show--he was instrumental in developing it, but you really have to give Lindelof and Cuse much more of the credit. Not to mention Sid and Marty Krofft, since Lost has been ripping off Land of the Lost from Day One.
quote:
And he's directed great episodes since then as well.
And other people you can't even name have directed equally good and better episodes. He's an effective traffic cop. That does not make him a great director. If it does, the TV biz is awash with great directors. It's not really a director's medium, much as some would like to think otherwise. Otherwise they wouldn't keep letting actors direct their own shows to make them happy.
quote:
I also don't view Mi:3 as poorly directed (I thought it was much better than Mi:2 and only a shade less enjoyable than the original), and I believe many critics agreed, especially when handed the keys to a big-budget, star-driven studio franchise.
The audience did not agree. Abrams killed that franchise dead. If he'd done it on purpose, I'd applaud, mind you.
quote:
If his direction wasn't particularly great I doubt they would have trusted him with the Star Trek gig.
And if Michael Bay's direction wasn't particularly great, they wouldn't have trusted him with Transformers.
I'm not saying he's an idiot. I'm just saying there's a lot less than meets the eye there. He's a mogul on the make, not an artist with a unique take. And the Bad Robot house style is wearing awfully thin.
The only reason I'm not writing Fringe off is that I know he's not going to have much to do with it.
I have already declared his Star Trek movie to be noncanonical. NONCANONICAL, I SAY.
Originally posted by mushu_jj: I think OTH is about on its last season. Creatively how much longer than these shenanigans go on?
In regards to One Tree Hill, their creator just said in a TV Guide interview that with the time jump last season, they're approaching the show as if it were in it's 2nd Season. That might sound crazy, except that so far, the numbers have remained solid (by CW standards). So the fans seem to be on board. It could easily go another 2 to 3 seasons.
I'm not trying to gush about OTH because the plot lines are over the top and it does have some really questionable moments... but if you really look at what the show has managed to do, it's impressive. No other RECENT teen drama has been able to stay relevant for so long.
Fringe should have done better. I think FOX would have been happy with anything over 10 milion. Under 10 milion, I'd be just a bit worried. But still, like many of you said, a show needs time to grow, especially a show like this one. There's no way FOX would give up on it, and I think we should see those numbers stay level or increase as the season officially begins. I didn't catch it, but I've been hearing great things about it all day, which is a good sign!
As to Hole in the Wall, you still can't judge those ratings. It wasn't even a full episode. We can only judge it once it officially premieres on Thursday.
90210 took quite a dive in episode 2. Not a great sign, because it should have done at least 4 million, IMO. But, it did do the same numbers that all of its shows have been doing - 3-3.5 million. The only one that hasn't done that is Privileged, which I honestly don't think will last very long.
Wipeout did OKAY, but nothing spectacular. Why is ABC counting it as 2 hours? It was still 2 seperate episodes, and should be counted that way. Still, it'll definitely be back next summer. Big Brother did very good numbers last night - CBS should be really pleased with how this show has done this summer. I'm looking forward to Tuesday!
I agree. CW needs all the shows they can lay their hands on. They air re-runs as part of their regular schedule which is ridiculous. Reaper got pretty similar numbers to the "darling" Gossip Girl last year. CW can't afford to piss off any portion of their audience.
My take on the rather massive loss for 90210 was the nostalgia factor. I think a lot of the original viewers (from the old show) never had any intention of watching the show regularly but they still tuned in to the the pilot of the new show just for nostalgia's sake.
quote:
Originally posted by mushu_jj:
quote:
Originally posted by Obveeus:
quote:
Originally posted by mushu_jj:
quote:
Originally posted by metal: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Privileged. If it keeps those ratings I think CW would keep it over Reaper.
I don't see why they couldn't keep both.
Exactly. CW needs to keep as many shows as possible. Eventually, they may even have enough first run programming to fill a schedule at the start of the season...and maybe even have a few midseason shows waiting in the wings.
Exactly and they should be working overtime here trying to secure a few midseason shows, even cheap reality filler that will do better than repeats of their highly serialized Monday and Tuesday night shows. Using Reaper for repeats on Thursday is a good idea. They'll also need reality to fill on Wednesday and perhaps they can come up with a comedy or two to air as well.
Originally posted by Ammit: My take on the rather massive loss for 90210 was the nostalgia factor. I think a lot of the original viewers (from the old show) never had any intention of watching the show regularly but they still tuned in to the the pilot of the new show just for nostalgia's sake.
I agree. People can't look at this show's 1st-2nd episode tune out and expect it to perform in the same way as 'the standard new show', since it isn't standard to bring back a show in name (and a few bit parts) after nearly a decade off the air. There was no doubt but that obsessed fans of the original show would tune in, be disappointed not to see their old show back again, and tune out.
I don't put much stock on this premier week thing. I don't even know when premier week is and I read these boards. When I was a kid the shows came back the week after school started, but shows ran for 30+ episodes back then and school didn't start in the middle of August.
I think that many of the people "in the business" or who follow it closely forget that your average person doesn't think about things like that. I'll bet that many people have no idea which network their favourite shows are on. They know that they like channel eight's news and that channel 6 has some goof stuff on Thursday night, but I don't think they really have any conscious awareness of channel brands and that sort of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by A.C.:
quote:
Originally posted by robert:
quote:
Originally posted by Twins12: I've always felt that the networks going early with their shows is a complete waste of time and money. I think people will not start to really get into Fall TV until premiere week. I think the networks should stop with this early premiere thing. Even shows that are doing well now will go down when all the networks start programming against it.
You actually think people are stupid. Like they wait a signal on the 1st week of the "official" season in order to turn on their TV sets. The only mistake FOX made was to premiere PB on Labour Day
PS: i guess Bones got 10 million viewers by accident, right?
Well said...Robert...the whole "waiting for the start of the season" thing is bogus.
Originally posted by metal: I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Privileged.
If it keeps those ratings I think CW would keep it over Reaper.
I don't see why they couldn't keep both. I think OTH is about on its last season. Creatively how much longer than these shenanigans go on? Plus with Smallville exiting, that opens a slot on Thursday and I don't see Privileged leading off Thursdays. I would think they would also want to put Stylista on eventually as a midseason filler for Top Model. Perhaps run a season in January and then in the summer if things go well. 90210 regardless of how far it drops at this point, probably won't do any worse than Gossip Girl and that sort of seems to be the bar for them right now.
I don't think this will be the last season for OTH. And the CW will produce new pilots for next fall. Sometimes it comes down to a decision between 2 shows. Of course nothing is certain, there might not even be a CW next year. And Reaper could come back strong if the CW promoted it's return (like OTH this January), though I doubt it seeing as the CW doesn't really promote the genre shows as much as the heavy female skewing ones, but both Privileged and Reaper could be keepers. Supernatural could also do horrible ratings, so you never know what's going to be renewed. But my feeling is that the CW would favour Privileged over Reaper, because Reaper skews male which isn't CW's target audience.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: metal,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ammit: And depending upon how much stock you put in this kind of thing. According to Wikipedia, Rupert Murdoch is Anna Torv's uncle.
Not anymore. Anna Torv's aunt was Murdoch's second wife - also named Anna Torv (there's an umlaut in there btw). Murdoch divorced his second wife in 1999 and paid her a $1.2 billion (US) settlement. He subsequently married his current wife Wendi Deng. Off hand I don't imagine Murdoch doing many favours for members of the Torv family.
I have no idea what goes on in the lives of the rich and famous, but most adults to not stop caring about a niece or nephew that they once bounced on their knee, just because there is a divorce in the family.
quote:
Originally posted by Sleddog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ammit: And depending upon how much stock you put in this kind of thing. According to Wikipedia, Rupert Murdoch is Anna Torv's uncle.
Not anymore. Anna Torv's aunt was Murdoch's second wife - also named Anna Torv (there's an umlaut in there btw). Murdoch divorced his second wife in 1999 and paid her a $1.2 billion (US) settlement. He subsequently married his current wife Wendi Deng. Off hand I don't imagine Murdoch doing many favours for members of the Torv family.
