Originally posted by pisher: They don't look too good compared to the ratings BSG was getting when it first appeared.
Well no, of course they don't. The miniseries averaged over 4 million viewers, the first season around 3 million.
The drop occurred with the second season. That season debuted strongly, but ratings dropped immediately with the second episode (-23% from episode 1 to 2).
The key here is that even though the season four premiere remains the weakest in the entire series (just barely getting beaten by the 2.16M who viewed the third season premiere) it registered a very strong uptick in viewership from the very poor season 3 finale (+41%--1.52M to 2.14M). It's only one week, but it's a respectable start considering how low the third season sank to.
quote:
I'll say it as many times as it needs be said--the 20 ep seasons were a mistake. Not deciding in advance how long the show would run was a mistake. The Starbuck/Apollo 'ship was a Dubya-level mistake.
And I'll say that the mistakes happened early on in the second season, and even somewhat towards the end of the first. But by the end of the second, the mistakes were too drastic to overcome.
I haven't watched the show since that second season finale (though I just rented the third season part 1 DVD so I plan on jumping back in soon--it's the last season and I have heard some good things about certain S3 episodes), but the ratings indicate the problem was already present before what ever happened in the third season.
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
Would Sci-Fi have let them decide this in advance?
No, and that's their mistake. But on the other hand, I'm sure Ron Moore & Co. weren't BEGGING for S4 to be the end. The ratings got too low, and SciFi showed some class in giving them a full season to wrap things up.
quote:
Fortunately, as with the new Doctor Who, the relationships don't get too much focus,
What a nice alternate universe you live in! In my universe, BSG was damn-near ruined by the relationships getting way too much focus, and the new Doctor Who was so bad in the first place that ruining it was impossible.
quote:
and (I suspect) are mostly just window dressing to fill out the bottle episodes and satisfy blockheaded TV executives who remain convinced that you need 'ships to attract female audience members, thus boosting ratings.
I've nothing against romantic subplots on TV shows--you just have to avoid letting them take over, and of course a romance between Starbuck and Apollo was going to take over, and no, that wasn't mandated by SciFi--that was the writer's mistake. They listened to some online fans who wanted to live vicariously through the characters, and genre show writers should always pretend that online fans don't exist. I've got my own life--TELL ME A GOOD STORY.
quote:
(Although, in the case of the new DW, I'm a bit mortified that even Donna now seems in awe of the Doctor. She's supposed to be deflating him and smacking him upside the head.
With a large heavy blunt instrument, so that he'll DIE. And then make damn sure he doesn't regenerate. He's not a real Time Lord, anyway.
quote:
The show's characters shouldn't all be in the Doctor's thrall. Russell T. Davies needs to stop treating the main character like a rock star. Just because Davies is in love with the Doctor doesn't mean all his characters need to be, too. The Doctor isn't Starbuck, for Christ's sake.)
And this isn't a discussion about the Ersatz Dr. Who, fercryinoutloud. Nobody knows, nobody cares. BSG is a hit compared to that show.
Well no, of course they don't. The miniseries averaged over 4 million viewers, the first season around 3 million.
Why "of course"? Don't a lot of shows go UP in the ratings as they proceed, and more people find out about them?
I think you agree with me even more than I agree with me. I mean, I'm still watching. Just not as excited as I was during the first season.
One problem is, as with Lost, that when you have all these surprise twists you want to spring on your viewers, you don't want them waiting around for years, trying to figure them out. Whether they guess right or not, the long-delayed revelation can only be a disappointment. You have to pick your moment, and the moment can't be FIVE FRAKKIN' YEARS AWAY.
Well no, of course they don't. The miniseries averaged over 4 million viewers, the first season around 3 million.
Why "of course"? Don't a lot of shows go UP in the ratings as they proceed, and more people find out about them?
I think you agree with me even more than I agree with me. I mean, I'm still watching. Just not as excited as I was during the first season.
Likely. By "of course" I meant the premiere's ratings were good only when compared to how poorly season three ended up in terms of ratings. At first glance this is a good start, but week two and three will really be the key since BSG has had a hard time since the second season of keeping people watching after the season premiere. It's almost like the premieres do well because of all the promotion, but once the new people tune in, they don't come back. We'll see if that's any different this season.
Posts: 533 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 22 September 2006
Originally posted by pisher: [One problem is, as with Lost, that when you have all these surprise twists you want to spring on your viewers, you don't want them waiting around for years, trying to figure them out. Whether they guess right or not, the long-delayed revelation can only be a disappointment. You have to pick your moment, and the moment can't be FIVE FRAKKIN' YEARS AWAY.
What "revelations"? The mini-series didn't really have any of the Lost-like "mysteries", except the model 6 in Baltar's head. The only questions were: will humanity survive, and what is awaiting them on Earth (if they find it).
I don't count that as a long-delayed "moment" to be revealed, it is just the plot of the show. Unlike Lost, you don't watch BSG to figure out why you have been watching in the first place and if it was worth it, but because you want to see what happens next.
As for the declining ratings, they have been a blessing in disguise. I feel 3 seasons would have been perfect for BSG, since most of the stand-alone episodes have been forgettable. It could have gone on and on had it been a hit (although it is still the highest rated SciFi show with Stargate), but it would surely have become very cheesy then, instead of the best drama on the air this Spring.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Show on the rise: Sci Fi Channel's "Battlestar: Galactica," Friday 10 p.m. The season premiere posted 2.1 million total viewers, 1.4 million 18-49s and 1.5 million 25-54s. Versus last season's premiere that jumped 19 percent in total viewers and 25-54s and 11 percent in 18-49s.
By "last season's premiere," I wonder if they mean "Occupation"/"Precipice" (the premiere of season 3 as a whole) or "Rapture," which was the premiere of season three-and-a-half (or 3.1 or 3.2 or whatever it's called). Neither got as much promotion as the season 4 premiere, as I recall.
quote:
And this isn't a discussion about the Ersatz Dr. Who, fercryinoutloud. Nobody knows, nobody cares.
As if you've never gone off on a tangent.
quote:
BSG is a hit compared to that show.
In the U.S., yes. Worldwide, no.
Posts: 94 | Location: Newark/NYC | Registered: 16 November 2006
What "revelations"? The mini-series didn't really have any of the Lost-like "mysteries", except the model 6 in Baltar's head. The only questions were: will humanity survive, and what is awaiting them on Earth (if they find it).
No, the central mystery is who are these people? Where did they come from? How did they end up worshipping archaic earth gods from a variety of pantheons? Why do they have jump-drives and use analog clocks? Their whole culture makes no sense, and their version of history makes no sense--it's as if they are an entire species living in a state of collective amnesia. The cylons know more about their past than they do, though the cylons don't know it all either.
And really, when you get right down to it, what do the cylons mean when they say this has all happened before, and it will all happen again?
The questions you mention are pretty minor ones by comparison. And hard as you try to deny it, BSG has, in fact, suffered from the same kinds of problems that have caused Lost to fall in the ratings. For "Starbuck & Apollo", read "Kate, Jack & Sawyer."
quote:
As for the declining ratings, they have been a blessing in disguise.
Agreed, and the same is true for Lost. It's a perfect analogy, or would be, if any significant number of people had ever watched BSG.
As if you didn't go off on yours because you have a hard time finding anybody to discuss Doctor Whozit with here. Or anywhere. I mean, move to frakkin' England, man. That's the only place people give a damn about Whozit.
quote:
In the U.S., yes. Worldwide, no.
Worldwide, NEITHER. Unless you define 'hit' VERY loosely, which genre fans tend to do a lot.
Doctor Who is the longest running SF TV show in the world and has been sold all over the world – Australia, South Africa to name two.
Doctor Who is one of my favorite shows of all time, but we're talking about Doctor Whozit here. Entirely different (and inferior) show. The original series ran 26 years--the new show pretends to continue the original, but even if you're gullible enough to buy that, it's still a different show, and has never enjoyed the worldwide popularity of the original.
Yes, the REAL Doctor Who is a bigger deal than Battlestar Galactica. Although the original Battlestar Galactica was a major U.S. network hit when it premiered, and thus was (for a brief time) watched by many more people than ever watched any Doctor Who episode.
In the U.S., Dr. Who has always been a cult thing--we mainly got to see it on PBS stations, and fans would volunteer to work the phone banks during pledge drives. Then BBC (those wankers) raised the rates too high for PBS. For a brief time, you could see a handful of Tom Baker serials on BBC America, but Davies' rehash put an end to that--all we get is the Faux-Who now.
I can't afford to buy all those DVDs. I mean, they could at least do a Tom Baker box set--I'd shell out a hundred or two for that. They could cut out the John Nathan-Turner episodes. Hinchcliffe and Williams eps ONLY.
Originally posted by pisher: [QUOTE]I'm sorry, is all of this going over your head?
No I'm English and have watched the show for a good proportion of my life.
You're just stating the same opinion I have about Battlestar Galactica, the show was on from 1978-79 and anything that came after was Battlestar Craptacular!
No I'm English and have watched the show for a good proportion of my life.
You've watched TWO shows, mate. One good one that lasted a long time. One bad one that will drag on a few more years then vanish without a trace.
quote:
You're just stating the same opinion I have about Battlestar Galactica, the show was on from 1978-79 and anything that came after was Battlestar Craptacular!
And thus we see that not all British people have good taste.
Pisher said: You've watched TWO shows, mate. One good one that lasted a long time. One bad one that will drag on a few more years then vanish without a trace.
It's not showing any weakness in the UK ratings so far -- the recent season premiere got 8.4 million and a 39% share (!) despite airing at a ridiculously early time of 6:20 p.m. It was the second-highest-rated show of the day on all of UK TV (besides soccer), and, IIRC, it was the #1 non-soap/sports program of the week. A rebroadcast on BBC3 the next day got 1.2 million viewers.
quote:
Hinchcliffe and Williams eps ONLY.
You like Williams more than JN-T's early days? Really? Have you re-watched any of the Williams era lately? It does not age well. It looks even sillier than ever. Williams certainly encouraged some beautifully out-there concepts, but the direction and production were generally atrocious. Hinchcliffe's episodes, on the other hand, are still brilliant.
As always, when a new producer takes over, the show will undoubtedly change significantly. Maybe you'll even like it again. Nah, probably not.
quote:
Bishop37 said: ...and anything that came after was Battlestar Craptacular!
Holy frak, it's a GINOme! I thought they were nearly extinct!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ike,
Posts: 94 | Location: Newark/NYC | Registered: 16 November 2006
Originally posted by pisher: No, the central mystery is who are these people? Where did they come from? How did they end up worshipping archaic earth gods from a variety of pantheons? Why do they have jump-drives and use analog clocks? Their whole culture makes no sense, and their version of history makes no sense
All that can be explained rationally, scientifically. Once again, it is just the plot of the show, and I am sure it will all be explained when the fleet (or parts of it) reaches Earth.
What I was talking about is Lost-like "mysteries", for example people coming back from the dead, or knowing about the future. BSG at first didn't have that many "mysteries", it was just a gripping tale of survival. And that is still the core of the show.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
