Originally posted by Chimera: Again, we will all find out in a few days. I say 16-18 million, Holly says 14 million or less and losing to CSI. We'll see who is right...
I think you are misrepresenting what has been said by trying to limit the claim to Lost premiere week rather than to the 7 weeks that follow.
Excuse me, but this is exactly what I said, just a couple of pages ago:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera:
I'm sorry, but there is no way repeats of CSI are going to beat new episodes on the only remaining must-see scripted show with new stuff. LOST is getting high internet buzz, its commercials rock, JJ Abrams' new big screen movie Cloverfield is killing at the box office, and there will be 3 hours of special LOST programming leading up to its premiere next Thursday. I think LOST will open with at least 18 million viewers, but even if it underperforms, 14 million is its floor. Plus it will certainly get more than the 3.3 demo rating that CSI rerun got. LOST got around a 6 or 7 rating in the demo...
Originally posted by Obveeus: You are wrong. The numbers posted and discussed here are the Live +Same Day viewer numbers. Anyone that timeshifts the show, but watches it before 3am the following morning is included in the numbers here.
Excuse me, but this is exactly what I said, just a couple of pages ago:
Excuse me, but how is that relevant to the text you quoted that was attempting to explain to you that you are incorrect about what ratings data is offered here?
If you meant to address the topic of whether or not we are talking about 1 week or 8 weeks of competition, the original poster asked if Lost could compete with 'CSI repeats'. The question asked was clearly not whether Lost could win once, but how it would compare over the course of its run.
the original poster asked if Lost could compete with 'CSI repeats'. The question asked was clearly not whether Lost could win once, but how it would compare over the course of its run.
OK, let me just make my position clear and obvious: LOST will premiere this coming week with 14-18 million viewers, it will beat CSI that week and over the course of its season while CSI has reruns.
aside from Heroes, they have nothing going for them anyway, so why judge a show on whether it fits in with the other crap they show?
Chuck has a concept that should work, and if it doesnt, its on NBC..
And yesterday's ploy was flat out pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by WelcomeToK-VilleAmericanGladiators: There is no reason for NBC to keep Chuck. It doesn't fit any of the other shows and they can replace it with a cheaper reality show and get better ratings with it. There are no distinguishing demos to help it out. It has no critical support. Can you blame NBC if it is a burn off?
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera: Yes, it is NBC's fault. As I mentioned in another thread, when NBC scheduled this "Chuck-stunt" I called it that it would not work and seemed a burn-off but others were confident that it showed NBC was confident of Chuck. I don't recall another show in recent history that had two non-consecutive episodes on the same night, and that night being its non-regular night, and that being the first and last time that show is on the air for months. Does that sound like faith or burn-off?
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus: no, I just watch Heroes and Chuck on NBC..
quote:
Originally posted by tvismyjob: I guess you don't watch much NBC. Those annoying turds Zachary Levi and Josh Gomez were all over it, promoting the hell out of the time change.
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus:
quote:
Originally posted by Riff Rafferty:
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus: Does NBC have one semi-intelligent person making decisions? The answer seems like No.
Of course Chuck's numbers went down. They randomly put the 2 unaired episodes on a night it has never been on before without first airing repeats or really hyping it up, and last night is what was bound to happen.
Every single person who makes decisions for NBC needs to be fired and replaced with someone else with creativity and intelligence.
The sad thing is, that NBC being as pathetic as they are, they might take the numbers from last night at face value without realizing they are to blame for the numbers and cancel the show..
Why blame NBC? Why not blame the stupid fans who kept going, "Put it on Thursday! Put it on Thursday! Kick '30 Rock' off Thursday! Put it there! Put it there!" If the numbers were bad, serves them right.
So, its the fans fault that randomly the show gets put on thursday night (not back-to-back) without ever telling the fans?
There was never 1 repeat aired on thursdays, there were no promos that I heard about it, nothing. If I didnt like the show, and actually go out and find out when the episodes were on, I would have had no clue they aired yesterday.
So, like is always the key for any show, people have to know when the show is going to be on, and I really dont think people knew Chuck was on last night...
Because Chuck has flatlined. Without something to support it, there's no way its numbers will get any better. It has no demos it can build from and no main audience to target. You are already mentioning that NBC is full of crap, why continue another crap show to add to the pile. It's time for NBC to purge, not stockpile.
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus: aside from Heroes, they have nothing going for them anyway, so why judge a show on whether it fits in with the other crap they show?
Chuck has a concept that should work, and if it doesnt, its on NBC..
And yesterday's ploy was flat out pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by WelcomeToK-VilleAmericanGladiators: There is no reason for NBC to keep Chuck. It doesn't fit any of the other shows and they can replace it with a cheaper reality show and get better ratings with it. There are no distinguishing demos to help it out. It has no critical support. Can you blame NBC if it is a burn off?
quote:
Originally posted by Chimera: Yes, it is NBC's fault. As I mentioned in another thread, when NBC scheduled this "Chuck-stunt" I called it that it would not work and seemed a burn-off but others were confident that it showed NBC was confident of Chuck. I don't recall another show in recent history that had two non-consecutive episodes on the same night, and that night being its non-regular night, and that being the first and last time that show is on the air for months. Does that sound like faith or burn-off?
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus: no, I just watch Heroes and Chuck on NBC..
quote:
Originally posted by tvismyjob: I guess you don't watch much NBC. Those annoying turds Zachary Levi and Josh Gomez were all over it, promoting the hell out of the time change.
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus:
quote:
Originally posted by Riff Rafferty:
quote:
Originally posted by Milcus: Does NBC have one semi-intelligent person making decisions? The answer seems like No.
Of course Chuck's numbers went down. They randomly put the 2 unaired episodes on a night it has never been on before without first airing repeats or really hyping it up, and last night is what was bound to happen.
Every single person who makes decisions for NBC needs to be fired and replaced with someone else with creativity and intelligence.
The sad thing is, that NBC being as pathetic as they are, they might take the numbers from last night at face value without realizing they are to blame for the numbers and cancel the show..
Why blame NBC? Why not blame the stupid fans who kept going, "Put it on Thursday! Put it on Thursday! Kick '30 Rock' off Thursday! Put it there! Put it there!" If the numbers were bad, serves them right.
So, its the fans fault that randomly the show gets put on thursday night (not back-to-back) without ever telling the fans?
There was never 1 repeat aired on thursdays, there were no promos that I heard about it, nothing. If I didnt like the show, and actually go out and find out when the episodes were on, I would have had no clue they aired yesterday.
So, like is always the key for any show, people have to know when the show is going to be on, and I really dont think people knew Chuck was on last night...
Chuck did even worse in the final numbers. (finals up at sitcomsonline). Still, I think Chuck was only moved to Thursdays because NBC was trying to experiment with what might fix their failing Thursday night. It isn't a sign that they were burning off Chuck. Chuck will be back next year.
Originally posted by WelcomeToK-VilleAmericanGladiators: There is no reason for NBC to keep Chuck. It doesn't fit any of the other shows and they can replace it with a cheaper reality show and get better ratings with it. There are no distinguishing demos to help it out. It has no critical support. Can you blame NBC if it is a burn off?
Chuck performs strongly in the young male demos. Finding a reality show that performs better than Chuck is not as easy as it sounds. Not every reality show will perform as well as AG or the temporarily pumped-up DoND. (I'm admittedly mystified as to why a bunch of Z-list celebrities were able to revive interest in the Apprentice, which was deservedly perishing in its previous cycle, and will return to that fate in a year or two at most.) NBC can't air AG every night.
Chuck was one of the very few new fall shows to hold onto its audience throughout the fall as other new shows dropped like rocks. This Thursday broadcast was just a time-period test balloon.
Not that I expect NBC to treat Chuck well, or fairly, since it isn't produced in-house. I wouldn't be surprised to see it held back until midseason 2009 and then pre-empted unexpectedly as with Medium (another show not produced in-house, so at the corporate level, they have little incentive to treat it well).
Posts: 94 | Location: Newark/NYC | Registered: 16 November 2006
I dont understand all the low expectations for Lost season 4... Season 1 & 2 it was HUGE, pulling in Grey's / Desperate Housewives numbers. Season 3 it decreased because of the later timeslot - and if you check out the numbers from 3.06 (9pm) and 3.07 (10pm), you can see how the timeslot change affected it.
With the cinema promotions, all the promos ABC has been showing, people catching up with the season 3 DVD (which has been selling EXTREMELY well), an earlier timeslot so more people will be able to watch it live rather than record it, weak competition - its worse being repeats, an actual half decent lead in, and god knows how many more benefits. I see Lost's premiere at ATLEAST 18 mil. & I think it'll average around 15/16 mil per episode.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lost_Dom,
Posts: 518 | Location: England (UK) | Registered: 11 October 2007
Lost Season one: (13th place) 9.8 HH Rating Desperate Housewives (4th place) 14.5 Grey's Anatomy (8th place) 11.6 Good, but not huge, and not at all the same as DH or GA.
Lost season two: (18th place) 9.2 Desperate Houseiwves (4th place) 13.8 Grey's Anatomy (5th place) 12.5.
Lost season three: (20th place tie with Shark) 8.7 Grey's Anatomy (7th place) 12.1 Desperate Housewives (9th place) 10.8
(Source: Nielsen Media Research)
quote:
Originally posted by Lost_Dom: I dont understand all the low expectations for Lost season 4... Season 1 & 2 it was HUGE, pulling in Grey's / Desperate Housewives numbers. Season 3 it decreased because of the later timeslot - and if you check out the numbers from 3.06 (9pm) and 3.07 (10pm), you can see how the timeslot change affected it.
With the cinema promotions, all the promos ABC has been showing, people catching up with the season 3 DVD (which has been selling EXTREMELY well), an earlier timeslot so more people will be able to watch it live rather than record it, weak competition - its worse being repeats, an actual half decent lead in, and god knows how many more benefits. Lost is bound to premiere to big numbers, and with all these factors, I see it floating around 15-16 mil per episode, possibly more, 14 at the very least. But being Lost, its bound to have a huge premiere - 18 mil atleast.
Originally posted by Fred Farrar: Please. Accuracy DOES count.
Lost Season one: (13th place) 9.8 HH Rating Desperate Housewives (4th place) 14.5 Grey's Anatomy (8th place) 11.6 Good, but not huge, and not at all the same as DH or GA.
Lost season two: (18th place) 9.2 Desperate Houseiwves (4th place) 13.8 Grey's Anatomy (5th place) 12.5.
Lost season three: (20th place tie with Shark) 8.7 Grey's Anatomy (7th place) 12.1 Desperate Housewives (9th place) 10.8
(Source: Nielsen Media Research)
quote:
Originally posted by Lost_Dom: I dont understand all the low expectations for Lost season 4... Season 1 & 2 it was HUGE, pulling in Grey's / Desperate Housewives numbers. Season 3 it decreased because of the later timeslot - and if you check out the numbers from 3.06 (9pm) and 3.07 (10pm), you can see how the timeslot change affected it.
With the cinema promotions, all the promos ABC has been showing, people catching up with the season 3 DVD (which has been selling EXTREMELY well), an earlier timeslot so more people will be able to watch it live rather than record it, weak competition - its worse being repeats, an actual half decent lead in, and god knows how many more benefits. Lost is bound to premiere to big numbers, and with all these factors, I see it floating around 15-16 mil per episode, possibly more, 14 at the very least. But being Lost, its bound to have a huge premiere - 18 mil atleast.
Ok, so I was slightly off. The season averages may not of been as high as my post made out, but certain episodes did achieve Greys/Desperate Housewives numbers. Early season 2 it was pulling around 24 million. 1 thing you should also take note of was that back in the time around season 1/2, Lost was the OFFICIAL 2nd most popular show on earth. DVD sales for Lost are far more better than those of Desperate Housewives/Greys too, and that is something ABC takes into account. Lost is still HUGELY succesful - Even if the season 3 ratings didn't reflect that.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Lost_Dom,
Posts: 518 | Location: England (UK) | Registered: 11 October 2007
My read of the relatively poor showing of "Chuck" is the show just doesn't cut it.
Monday night prime time and the ratings for the show were in the 7.5 to 8.00 million range --to be kind-- which is hardly exiting for a major network (NBC is still a major network?)
The try-out for Thursday is probably the execs seeing if the show would have more legs on a Thursday night. So now ya know. Wouldn't surprise me if they ran-off the show at 10pm on a Thursday--as that is marginally more respectable than its previous numbers.
