The Biggest Loser and Boston Legal both deserve honorable mentions. A quick look at CBS' Big Brother and Jericho (which had the benefit of a solid NCIS lead-in) will tell you that ratings over 5.0 are worthy of being considered a success.
Originally posted by AL: Marc, I know you will not reply (or maybe you don't even read the board any more), but your bias against NBC never ceases to amaze me.
First in your column today you write about NBCs Biggest Loser as follows:
quote:
Take a look at the half hour breakdown of The Biggest Loser vs. American Idol.
Now does anyone really expect there to be a comparison between Idol and Biggest Loser? NBC should be applauded for at least having something on against Idol that is competitive. Just look at the other networks against Idol. ABC is horrible. CBS does OK with NCIS, but look at Big Brother. Forget about CW. So at least NBC has found something that delivers a decent 18-49 rating against the mighty Idol. But you put them down because "their is no comparison".
Next, I decided to listen to your podcast today, and of course you decide to blast NBC for announcing yesterday that they will be announcing a year round schedule in April. For years people have complained about the summer doldrums on TV. And NBC has decided to be aggressive this summer, with the Summer Olympics to build around. Now, I could agree with you that the schedule they announce in April will stick for a full year. But do any of the schedules that any of the networks announce at the upfronts ever stick for even a couple of months? All that NBC is doing extra than usual is anouncing their summer plans for this summer. Plus, isnt one of the major points of the upfront to get the word out about the shows that are coming?
Your attack at NBC on the podcast is so ridiculous; was your employment their so bad that you just can't contain your anger at the network?
Actually Marc is really kind with NBC. NBC is a total disaster, their numbers are pathetic for what NBC used to be. I mean they don't have a single hit show, that's just plain awful
Well, if you want to blast NBC for mismanagement over the last few years, that is certainly justified. But to attack them for trying to be aggressive in announcing scheduling plans that is a bit over the line. And NBC has best been competitive this season (vs the other networks) programming against AI, yet he goes off because "there is no comparison".
Originally posted by xwiseguyx: Everyone has been trashing Jericho. I never watched it until last week's episode but thought it was interesting. I like the Esai Morales' character. The lead is a little on the stiff side though - appealing to look at, but I think the acting is somewhat wooden, however, a fine supporting cast keeps me intrigued for another week.
I thought last night was a lot better than the rather slow premiere. The focus on Stanley/Mimi is clearly pandering to all the fans who squee over them, but I wish they'd have cut down on that and put more of the week 2 stuff into the premiere. Definitely agree about the woodenness of Skeet Ulrich.
I have tried to watch a few episodes of Jericho, including both this season. I just don't get this show -- the show's premise should have led to a much better show that what I've seen in the screen (which admittedly is not that much). I generally like sci-fi shows, or even vaguely sci-fi shows like LOST. I think people initially tuned in because of the shows post-apocalyptic promise, but few returned due to the incredibly slow pace of the show, and really very little of what can be considered typical for a post-apocalyptic storyline or scenery. It may be what they were aiming for, but it's clearly not what most of its original audience wanted or expected.
Originally posted by AL: Marc, I know you will not reply (or maybe you don't even read the board any more), but your bias against NBC never ceases to amaze me.
First in your column today you write about NBCs Biggest Loser as follows:
quote:
Take a look at the half hour breakdown of The Biggest Loser vs. American Idol.
Now does anyone really expect there to be a comparison between Idol and Biggest Loser? NBC should be applauded for at least having something on against Idol that is competitive. Just look at the other networks against Idol. ABC is horrible. CBS does OK with NCIS, but look at Big Brother. Forget about CW. So at least NBC has found something that delivers a decent 18-49 rating against the mighty Idol. But you put them down because "their is no comparison".
Next, I decided to listen to your podcast today, and of course you decide to blast NBC for announcing yesterday that they will be announcing a year round schedule in April. For years people have complained about the summer doldrums on TV. And NBC has decided to be aggressive this summer, with the Summer Olympics to build around. Now, I could agree with you that the schedule they announce in April will stick for a full year. But do any of the schedules that any of the networks announce at the upfronts ever stick for even a couple of months? All that NBC is doing extra than usual is anouncing their summer plans for this summer. Plus, isnt one of the major points of the upfront to get the word out about the shows that are coming?
Your attack at NBC on the podcast is so ridiculous; was your employment their so bad that you just can't contain your anger at the network?
Actually Marc is really kind with NBC. NBC is a total disaster, their numbers are pathetic for what NBC used to be. I mean they don't have a single hit show, that's just plain awful
Oh, and another thing. If Heroes is not a hit show than could you please define what a hit show is? And even if it might just be a passing fad, DOND gets 15 million viewers on the Monday show. Is that not hit worthy?
For the end of the Greatest Television Series Ever?
I know exactly what you mean, but it's strange, isn't it? Almost like the real objective of a truly great show is to end--not to drag on pointlessly, but to make its point and leave the stage gracefully. And in this case, brutally.
Originally posted by Chimera: I have tried to watch a few episodes of Jericho, including both this season. I just don't get this show -- the show's premise should have led to a much better show that what I've seen in the screen (which admittedly is not that much). I generally like sci-fi shows, or even vaguely sci-fi shows like LOST. I think people initially tuned in because of the shows post-apocalyptic promise, but few returned due to the incredibly slow pace of the show, and really very little of what can be considered typical for a post-apocalyptic storyline or scenery. It may be what they were aiming for, but it's clearly not what most of its original audience wanted or expected.
Well, I think you hit the main problem, which was that they spent the first half or so of the first season going absolutely nowhere. All the outside-of-Jericho stuff moved at an absolute snail's pace until the second half of the season, when nobody was really watching anymore. Invasion (which I love to see all the recent chatter about, as it was one of my favorites) kind of had the same problem.
Compare to something like Lost, where obviously they are going to have to adjust to life in this new world, but they don't spend 11 episodes on just that. The first episode has a polar bear and a monster eating the pilot. They at least gave some hints that there was more to the show than "adjusting to a new world."
Jericho is yet another example of a show that could only appeal in the short term--it would have worked fine as a miniseries. But when the writers have to start thinking about how to keep it going for an undetermined number of episodes, it all falls to pieces.
I'm all for serialized dramas, but if the networks want to do them, they should decide in advance how long they're going to run--contingency plans should be in place for concluding them quickly if the ratings don't pan out. But even if they're huge hits, they stick to the original gameplan, and end after the allotted number of eps. No more of this "Let's see what happens along the way" crap. We know what happens. They string us along for the money. Been there done that.
And SCC has certainly not been "critically praised", unlike PD.
Both shows got lots of favorable reviews for their massively expensive heavily hyped pilots, then the critics mainly lost interest. Because neither show is interesting.
Huh????? "not interesting"... I find SCC to be a very entertaining and interesting show with lot's of potential. The actors are pretty good, and the show itself follows the first two movies pretty well. What do you dislike about the show? A lot of people I've talked/chatted with to have said very positive stuff about all the episodes (except for maybe those wackos at IMDB)
SCC is a lot like a toned down version of the new Battlestar Galactica - with no sex scenes (so far). And like I've said, a lot of other scif-fi forums have stated that they like the show.
Huh????? "not interesting"... I find SCC to be a very entertaining and interesting show with lot's of potential.
I find it otherwise, and there's no apostrophe in 'lots'. I mean, unless you're making a biblical reference about Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt. Did that happen in a recent SCC ep?
quote:
The actors are pretty good,
You know, it's just POSSIBLE we have different opinions on what constitutes good acting.
quote:
and the show itself follows the first two movies pretty well.
I hope I did not give the impression I was dissing SCC as a James Cameron purist.
quote:
What do you dislike about the show?
The writing. The acting. The directing. The fact that there is a show based on the Terminator movies. The fact that some people still talk about Summer Glau like she can act.
quote:
A lot of people I've talked/chatted with to have said very positive stuff about all the episodes (except for maybe those wackos at IMDB)
You are seriously presenting this as an argument?
President Bush currently has a 19% approval rating (check out the latest ARG poll), but if you hang out at certain political forums, you'd find people saying very positive things about him.
quote:
SCC is a lot like a toned down version of the new Battlestar Galactica - with no sex scenes (so far).
Are you sure that's meant to be an argument in FAVOR of SCC?
I like BSG, and I agree they're trying to go for a similar vibe, but here's the problem--they really suck at it. And SCC isn't based on a spaceship. And they aren't remaking a shortlived flop that had a lot of unused potential. And SCC isn't on the SciFi Channel. And if it was, it would be getting lower ratings than BSG. Which is getting pretty low ratings itself these days. Even GOOD remakes don't tend to last long.
quote:
And like I've said, a lot of other scif-fi forums have stated that they like the show.
Yes, and by that logic, Firefly should be in its sixth season, and Veronica Mars in its fourth. And Veronica Mars isn't even a SciFi show. And the people at SciFi forums don't know spit about science fiction.
Oh, and by that logic, Ron Paul should be the Republican nominee.
You know, it's just POSSIBLE we have different opinions on what constitutes good acting.
Okay, what do you think is wrong with the acting?
quote:
quote:
and the show itself follows the first two movies pretty well.
I hope I did not give the impression I was dissing SCC as a James Cameron purist.
I never said that, did I? It was just something I pointed out.
quote:
You are seriously presenting this as an argument?
President Bush currently has a 19% approval rating (check out the latest ARG poll), but if you hang out at certain political forums, you'd find people saying very positive things about him.
Actually, there are also a lot more forums with people saying extremely negative things about him. I can't find very many forums in which the majority of people are saying they hate this show.
quote:
The writing. The acting. The directing. The fact that there is a show based on the Terminator movies.
What's wrong with the writing, the acting, and the direction? What would YOU like to see (and please be more specific)
It actually seems like the writers have something planned out instead of just making it all up as they go along.
quote:
Yes, and by that logic, Firefly should be in its sixth season, and Veronica Mars in its fourth. And Veronica Mars isn't even a SciFi show. And the people at SciFi forums don't know spit about science fiction
But you do?
btw, which episodes have you actually seen? Tell me exactly what was wrong with each of them.
and when I said "toned down" - I meant in terms of language and sex.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ObserverEffect,
For the end of the Greatest Television Series Ever?
I know exactly what you mean, but it's strange, isn't it? Almost like the real objective of a truly great show is to end--not to drag on pointlessly, but to make its point and leave the stage gracefully. And in this case, brutally.
Of course I would just love two more seasons, or at least three more episodes this year. But given the low ratings, we can all be glad The Wire got to last that long. Plus, David Simon had 5 seasons planned all along, so it is just perfect.
And yes, it is better to end a series on a high note. Friends, The Sopranos, and especially PB show how bad it can get. Not that any of those shows can even be compared to The Wire.
Posts: 636 | Location: NYC | Registered: 02 November 2007
Of course I would just love two more seasons, or at least three more episodes this year.
I hate to say goodbye to the characters, and I agree a few more eps would have been nice, given all the threads that had to be tied up from previous seasons. Funny how shows that have very little story to tell run on forever, and this show that had so much story to tell only lasted 60 episodes. But enough is as good as a feast.
quote:
But given the low ratings, we can all be glad The Wire got to last that long.
It was too special to cancel, though I'm sure HBO considered it.
quote:
Plus, David Simon had 5 seasons planned all along, so it is just perfect.
Nothing's perfect. But for series TV, this is as close as anyone will ever get. The Prisoner is just about as close, but of course that only ran 17 episodes--and McGoohan had to be persuaded to make that many--he wanted fewer. Because he knew that too many chapters can dilute a story's impact far more often than it increases it.
quote:
And yes, it is better to end a series on a high note. Friends, The Sopranos, and especially PB show how bad it can get.
Friends was never a great show, though I agree it was clever enough the first season or three. Its only purpose was to make money, so there's no point mourning the perfect ending that could never have happened. The only near-perfect sitcom is The Honeymooners--which only ran one season as a sitcom. There'll never be another.
The Sopranos did end on a high note, IMO. It was starting to drag and drift, because HBO was reluctant to let Chase finish it, but count me among the people who appreciated the integrity with which he concluded his narrative. Six Feet Under was having the same problems, but thankfully HBO was more willing to let go of it, since the ratings were never as high.
I can't remember what PB stands for.
quote:
Not that any of those shows can even be compared to The Wire.
The Sopranos and Six Feet Under are in the same league, though never quite as good. They had a handicap--they actually became popular.
