"Fringe"----X-FIles Rip Off!!
WG...@webtv.net
Soldier" concept? Those Shape Shifters, are just "Super Soldiers" in
disguise. Last night was just like an X-Files episode, only "Boring"!
The acting was more like sleep walking, and that is what I felt like
doing while watching the episode. LOL!
Sean Carroll
> Could they be anymore obvious with their rip off of the X-Files "Super
> Soldier" concept? Those Shape Shifters, are just "Super Soldiers" in
> disguise. Last night was just like an X-Files episode,
This is extraordinarily old news. Everyone knew that it would be very
XF-like even before the first episode aired. And those who had their doubts
were surely dispelled of them completely the first time they saw the opening
sequence and heard the theme. Since then, fans have picked out dozens of
details in every episode that were unmistakable XF homages. Where have you
been?
Also, FWIW, when 'The X-Files' itself started out, it was essentially a
combined ripoff of 'Twin Peaks' (Dale Cooper = Mulder), 'The Silence of the
Lambs' (Clarice Starling = Scully), and 'Kolchak: The Night Stalker' (the
monsters and aliens, right down to a proto-Tooms character). Everything in
art is a rip-off of something else, to a greater or lesser degree. So what?
> only "Boring"!
> The acting was more like sleep walking, and that is what I felt like
> doing while watching the episode. LOL!
Sounds like time for you to stop watching and posting about a show you
clearly get no enjoyment from. Why waste your time? Let those of us who
actually *like* the show put forth the effort to continue paying attention
to it.
I don't watch 'American Idol' every week and then get online and bitch about
how boring it is. And why not? Because ... *it's boring*.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]Sounds like time for you to stop watching and
] posting about a show you clearly get no
] enjoyment from. Why waste your time? Let
] those of us who actually *like* the show put
] forth the effort to continue paying attention to
] it.
And your point is what exactly? Where in my post did I say I did not
enjoy the show? I do enjoy it for the type of show it really is, a bad
drama, with no original ideas. And paying attention to the show is a
real effort for anyone!
Brad Filippone
Rip off? Or homage?
Brad
Alan
The producers were perfectly open about their sources.
So I would call it an attempted homage. I would have been
happy to watch it if it were as good as the X-Files.
--
AlanH
WG...@webtv.net
] (Brad Filippone)
]Rip off? Or homage?
I think if it was a homage to the X-FIles they would just called the
Mercury loving aliens, "Super Soldiers", and not "Shape Shifters"!
Sean Carroll
> sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
Um. Okay. Wow. Where to begin here ...
How can something be 'boring' and yet enjoyable at the same time? I was
under the impression that by definition, that which is boring is not
enjoyable.
If you enjoy the show, then why is every word you speak about it negative?
According to you, it's 'boring', full of 'bad acting', a 'rip off', and
makes you want to fall asleep. How is it possible that you could say you
'enjoy' such an experience?
I don't understand how you could enjoy something, and yet every single word
you say about it is a put down. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]If you enjoy the show, then why is every word
] you speak about it negative? According to
] you, it's 'boring', full of 'bad acting', a 'rip off',
] and makes you want to fall asleep. How is it
] possible that you could say you 'enjoy' such
] an experience?
]I don't understand how you could enjoy
] something, and yet every single word you say
] about it is a put down. It makes no sense to
] me whatsoever.
I guess I just enjoy Hating this show so much, that I am compelled to
watch it. It's a fun show as long as you do not take it too seriously.
The bad acting, and the bad writing, are some of the "best things" about
this show. To me it is more of a comedy, than a drama, and I always get
a few laughs from every episode. So now you know why I watch this show,
and I will continue to watch it, until I get totally bored with it!
Sean Carroll
> sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
To be honest, I still don't fully understand.
I mean, yes, I understand that one can derive a lot of fun from watching
something awful and mocking it. That's the entire essence of MST3K.
But there are two aspects to this that I just don't get:
1) It's one thing to enjoy watching bad acting and bad writing. It's quite
another thing to enjoy something that, according to your own claims, is
'boring'. You keep calling it boring. You said it 'makes you want to
sleepwalk'. You even said that it 'takes a huge effort for anyone to pay
attention to it'. These are not descriptions of something so bad it's good.
They're descriptions of something that's just plain *bad*, and not in an
amusing way. The very definition of 'boring' is something that's *not*
enjoyable, in *any* way! 'Boring' is not the same thing as 'bad'. If you're
having fun with it, even just by mocking it, it's obviously not 'boring'.
2) I reiterate, going back to the MST3K model, that it is possible to find
*tremendous* enjoyment in picking apart a piece of bad entertainment.
However, this requires at least some small amount of wit and cleverness --
at least, for it to be worthwhile to go online to share it with others. Try
not to take this personally, but I find no wit or cleverness in your
criticisms of 'Fringe'. It's basically the same simplistic observations over
and over again -- 'These actors are terrible, especially Anna Torv! The
stories make no sense! And it's a huge ripoff of XF!' -- lather, rinse,
repeat ad infinitum. I have a hard time understanding how even you yourself
could actually 'enjoy' making such a tepid series of straightforward, style-
and panache-free, repetitive complaints. But even granting that *you* do,
it's highly unlikely that anyone else will find any enjoyment in reading
them, unless you spice it up a little. Be acerbic! Be scathing! Rip the show
a new one if you enjoy hating it so much! Demolish it! Don't just post brief
little whines. Now *that* is boring.
Now, as for my own opinion about the show? It's obviously nowhere near the
level XF was. (Who but a fool would ever expect it to be?) And yet, I find
myself strangely hooked on it. They must be doing *something* right, since
it's still one of the biggest shows around, and a major watercooler topic
among the hip kids. Most of my old X-Phile friends seem to be fans. And I
almost never feel 'bored' when I'm watching it. Even if it's not a
spectacular masterpiece, I still find it to be fairly intelligent,
engrossing, scary at times, and visually striking -- there are some pretty
damn good special/visual effects, usually at least one or two per episode.
At least, it's enough of all those things to keep me watching, and to make
most of my thoughts and feelings about it lean to the positive side, toward
praise rather than criticism. (Not that I don't think some legitimate
criticisms can be made.) Hell, the character of Walter Bishop, particularly
his chemistry with Peter, is worth the price of admission alone, as far as
I'm concerned.
As for it being a 'comedy' ... well, it does certainly have a campy edge,
and some things that aren't really supposed to be 'jokes' do make me laugh
every once in a while. But go back and watch that scene in the diner where
Olivia confronts Walter about his experiments on her, and he breaks down
crying with guilt, and then tell me there's no decent drama on the show, at
least *once* in a while. (I can think of other scenes to adduce for this
point, too, but I think that one is the most compelling.)
Okay ... off now to watch last night's episode!
Sean Carroll
> Now, as for my own opinion about the show? It's obviously nowhere near the
> level XF was. (Who but a fool would ever expect it to be?) And yet, I find
> myself strangely hooked on it. They must be doing *something* right, since
> it's still one of the biggest shows around, and a major watercooler topic
> among the hip kids. Most of my old X-Phile friends seem to be fans. And I
> almost never feel 'bored' when I'm watching it. Even if it's not a
> spectacular masterpiece, I still find it to be fairly intelligent,
> engrossing, scary at times, and visually striking -- there are some pretty
> damn good special/visual effects, usually at least one or two per episode.
> At least, it's enough of all those things to keep me watching, and to make
> most of my thoughts and feelings about it lean to the positive side,
> toward praise rather than criticism. (Not that I don't think some
> legitimate criticisms can be made.) Hell, the character of Walter Bishop,
> particularly his chemistry with Peter, is worth the price of admission
> alone, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, and one more point. I like that they present all the weird, trippy stuff
as 'fringe science', more than 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' stuff. I like
the fact that it's more about imagining what bizarre things science may
discover in the future, on the outer edges of reality, where things don't
fit into the neat little boxes of na�ve, oversimplified materialism and
pseudo-rationalist arrogance (the attitude that any 'extreme possibility'
that's a little 'out there', or challenging to the consciousness, or smells
of the paranormal, is dismissed as useless mumbo jumbo).
Too many of both scientists and paranormal advocates -- the extremists who
are two sides of the same coin -- promote this nonsense idea that science
and the paranormal are two contradictory worldviews. They have either too
much scepticism and no willingness to even consider these things, or too
much willingness to believe and no scepticism at all. They either say that
all so-called paranormal phenomena are nonsense, believed only by the overly
credulous, and rational science has no room for any such things; or they say
that all these paranormal things are real, based not on evidence but belief,
and that these things are somehow 'beyond scientific explanation'.
Either way, despite being superficial enemies, they're both making the same
mistake, and overlooking the same truth. As Dr J Allen Hynek used to say,
there will be a 22nd-century science, and a 23rd-century science, and a 50th
century science, and a science millions of years in the future, and
scientists will demonstrate, explain, and harness phenomena that we don't
even have any clue exist yet -- let alone the stuff that there are only
scattered eyewitness accounts of today, that many dismiss as unreal because
the physical proof isn't there yet (or, as in the case of UFOs, they're just
ignorant of the massive body of physical evidence that already exists,
because the mainstream has refused to look at or publicise it). One needs
both a willingness to look beyond the mainstream and entertain ideas about
things that aren't yet understood, *and* a rationalist scepticism to weed
out the bad ideas from the good ones, in order to truly advance science. (As
we all should know, thanks to the Scully/Mulder partnership.)
Imagine if you told someone in Isaac Newton's time about quantum mechanics.
'Nonsense!', he would say. 'That violates all the wonderful new laws of
physics we just discovered!' But they didn't *know* all the laws. The were
only at the very beginning of the journey. Quantum mechanics is very real,
and a fundamental aspect of the world; but they couldn't have discovered or
believed in it at the time, because science wasn't ready yet. But science
became ready. Science is always advancing, and new things always continue to
be discovered, even gigantically bizarre things that challenge all the
mainstream scientific ideas of the day.
So many TV shows talk about the 'paranormal' and the 'supernatural' these
days. I believe that 'paranormal' is a useful term, but it can be
misunderstood; many people think of it as meaning that something is somehow
beyond all possibility of scientific understanding. They think it really
means 'supernatural' -- a meaningless term, since, as Scully says, 'Nothing
happens in contradiction to nature. Only in contradiction to what we know of
it.'
But 'Fringe', in the tradition of XF, is trying a *scientific* approach to
the paranormal. I mean, obviously, the actual 'science' of the show is
almost all fictional. (Although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that
some day, at least *some* of it could come true -- parallel universes, in
particular, are becoming more and more widely accepted by the physics
community in real life.) But the point is, it's more pseudo-SCIENCE than
PSEUDO-science. Their method for exploring the unknown is a lab full of
chemicals, physical and biological experiments, mathematical calculations --
not unreliable mediums and 'ghost whisperers' and idle armchair conspiracy
theorists, over half of whom are lying charlatans or self-deluded crazies (a
few may be legitimate, but there's really no way of knowing which ones, if
any).
And that's what I love about 'Fringe': that its view of the paranormal is
that it's an opportunity to push the boundaries of science, not to tell a
bunch of faerie tales and urban legends and promote the doctrine that some
things are just 'beyond the reach of science'. I mean, I love the show
'Medium', for example, but its treatment of the paranormal is wholly
unscientific -- it's all about magical spirits and visions provided by some
kind of omnibus benevolent force that wants to 'put things right'. That's
not what 'Fringe' is about. I think it's a worthy successor to the XF
tradition of *scientific* paranormal investigation.
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]Now, as for my own opinion about the show?
] It's obviously nowhere near the level XF was.
] (Who but a fool would ever expect it to be?)
] And yet, I find myself strangely hooked on it.
] They must be doing *something* right, since
] it's still one of the biggest shows around, and
] a major watercooler topic among the hip kids.
] Most of my old X-Phile friends seem to be
] fans. And I almost never feel 'bored' when I'm
] watching it. Even if it's not a spectacular
] masterpiece, I still find it to be fairly intelligent,
] engrossing, scary at times, and visually
] striking
How can you say that this show is one of the biggest around when it
barely gets 6 million viewers an episode? CSI is killing it every week
with around 15 milion viewers. (see link below)
]-- there are some pretty damn good
] special/visual effects, usually at least one or
] two per episode. At least, it's enough of all
] those things to keep me watching, and to
] make most of my thoughts and feelings about
] it lean to the positive side, toward praise
] rather than criticism. (Not that I don't think
] some legitimate criticisms can be made.) Hell,
] the character of Walter Bishop, particularly his
] chemistry with Peter, is worth the price of
] admission alone, as far as I'm concerned.
I find most of the special and visual effects to be pretty simplistic on
this show. Like the "scary" (yeah right!) faces in the last episode were
so bad, I was laughing out loud. The Dream Stealing premise was just
sad. And that entire anagram thing was just plain silly. Pick the first
and last letters of a calling card that you got from people wearing Red,
and you will spell out something important. Give me a break! I keep
watching this show hoping that it will get better, and it never does.
After the last "bad" episode I think they have bored me for the last
time. When the show comes back in November I will not be watching.
]TV ratings: 'CSI' leads CBS to Thursday title;
] ABC wins demo - From Inside the Box - Zap2it
Sean Carroll
> How can you say that this show is one of the biggest around when it
> barely gets 6 million viewers an episode? CSI is killing it every week
> with around 15 milion viewers. (see link below)
Oooooooh, 'ONLY' six million, huh? *rolls eyes*
Oh, come on. I hate that lame-ass way that the industry acts as if a show
isn't 'successful' unless it's THE single most popular show in its time
slot. There are hundreds of channels. How can something be anywhere in the
top 5 or 10 and NOT be considered successful? It's possible to be 'big'
without being THE VERY BIGGEST EVER.
You know what? Most of the shows that are on all the 'very highest top
ratings' list, I have no interest in at all. First off, of course, the
*quality* of a show has nothing to do with its popularity. But more
relevantly to this discussion, six million people is a LOT OF TEMPE-DAMNED
PEOPLE. I don't *give a shit* that 15 million is more than 6 million. I've
never created anything that had 6 million fans, and if I did, I would
consider myself a pretty big fucking success!
The television industry has a totally fucked up, ridiculously
out-of-proportion view of what sort of ratings constitute a successful show.
You're totally buying into that view. Allow me to quote from an entry I
posted in my LiveJournal in September 2008:
**********************************************************************************
I was just reading in next week's TV Guide about how last week's pilot of
the new show Fringe 'ONLY' had 9,13 million viewers, getting beat out on
that night by America's Got Talent, with 11,61 million. Apparently, it
'scored with young adults but couldn't match Talent's overall audience'.
This is somehow 'troubling news' for the show, and 'disappointing
considering the pedigree [referring to creator JJ Abrams] and exhaustive
promotional push the show was given by Fox'. But they still 'can hold out
hope' that its ratings will increase after they move it to the time slot
after House.
Let me repeat some of those words for you. 'TROUBLING NEWS'.
'DISAPPOINTING'. They 'CAN [ONLY] HOLD OUT HOPE.'
All because its VERY FIRST EPISODE 'only' got watched by SEVENTY-EIGHT POINT
SIX PERCENT as many people as a long-established member of the current
reality show craze that has zombified practically every demographic group in
the country.
And DESPITE all this, despite being compared to a show with such broad and
trendy appeal, it STILL 'scored' among its main target audience of young
adults.
This is 'TROUBLING'???? This is 'DISAPPOINTING'???? NOT the words I would
pick!!!
In fact, I just went online and did a search, and I see multiple pages
saying that Fringe actually WON the night, BEATING America's Got Talent!! So
what the hell? Did TV Guide write up their article based on polls before the
damn show even started, the way the mass media decides who wins a political
race?
Anyway, when I did the search I IMMEDIATELY got back this page, which lays
out all the facts and points out that, given the changes in the TV industry
of recent years, Fringe's premiere was 'an unqualified success, both
quantitatively and especially culturally':
http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=130903
Meanwhile, other pages the search pulled up bemoan the 'modest' and 'so-so'
ratings. I don't know if their numbers AT ALL take into account people like
me who missed the original premiere, but then heard good things about it,
and caught the special rerun a couple of days ago -- let alone people who
DVRed either airing and watched it later -- but somehow, I seriously doubt
it.
How fucking stupid ARE people?? Are they completely incapable of thinking
about any issue for more than 7 femtoseconds??
'Well, yeah ... the show WAS the most successful of the night in its key
demographic ... and respected critics have been raving about how awesome it
is -- even going so far as to call it Lost co-creator Abrams's "masterpiece"
... and it's struck a profound cultural chord of dystopian paranoia and
fascination with bizarre scientific and medical phenomena among young people
in a way that has not happened since about the time of the first X-Files
movie ... sure, all that's true. ... But LOOK!! Some sources say that it had
SLIGHTLY LOWER RATINGS than some reality show on another channel!!!!!!
That'll cost FOX a few dollars in advertising revenue!!!!! Cancel it
now!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Dude, people. When you have no idea what you're talking about, just SHUT THE
FUCK UP! One number being slightly higher than another on someone's chart is
NOT a big profound statement that is 'troubling' and 'disappointing' --
ESPECIALLY when other people's charts disagree that it even WAS higher!!!!
Either learn how to derive actual REAL-LIFE MEANING from abstract numbers,
or STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM AS IF YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THEM!!
The worst part is that FOX almost certainly has scads of these morons in
their executive offices, all ready to command the immediate axing of the
show if its ratings should happen to drop a tiny fraction below their
accountants' projections, and -- GASP!! -- earn the corporation ONLY a few
hundred THOUSAND dollars instead of a hundred million!!
**********************************************************************************
You're feeding this ridiculously skewed view by buying into this nonsense.
There are so many things wrong with the view that 'Fringe' is 'not a big
show' because its ratings share 'only' represents six million people:
1) It's just an outright, absurd LIE that six million people is 'not a lot'.
That's more than the entire population of Finland!
2) It's not even possible to demonstrate that's really the true number of
viewers. The rating system is *full* of sources of bias and inaccuracy. The
parameters from which the rating statistics are extrapolated involve data
from only 25 000 households (that would be about 0,04% of the US population,
if we assume an average of 5 people per household). Moreover, all the people
who participate in the ratings system are self-selected volunteers, which
means that they're totally invalid as a supposedly 'random sample' of
people, making any overall statistics calculated from their numbers
extremely suspect as far as accuracy. The ratings also *still* do not take
into account people who DVR shows to watch them later, despite widespread
recognition that this is a *crucial* omission of a *very* important
demographic. Nor do they take into account people who watch TV outside of
the home, in places like dorm rooms, transport terminals, bars, and such, or
people who watch shows online. In short, the official ratings of shows are
virtually worthless if you want a genuinely realistic picture of what people
are actually watching.
3) Even if the numbers *were* accurate, it is not really valid to compare
them among shows that appeal to different demographics. As much as I like
'CSI', I'm pretty sure it has a lot of viewers that are quite a bit older
and more mainstream than most 'Fringe' watchers. Which is not to say that
middle-aged and old people don't count, but you do have to take into account
the fact that 'Fringe' makes virtually no effort to appeal to those older
people, so it makes no sense to blame it for not getting more viewers in
that group. It doesn't get them because it's not meant for them in the first
place. A show can be extraordinarily 'big', and successful, and important,
simply by appealing very strongly to a particular demographic. Some shows
try to spread out their appeal more, so they may get significantly more
total viewers; but some of the real genre shows, like 'Fringe', can have
much more devoted, vocal fans within its demographic, even if there are
fewer of them total. It's not just raw numbers that determine a show's
success; it's also appeal to its target audience.
4) What makes me think 'Fringe' is a big show is that, not only is it very
popular within its target demographic, but it gets significant media
coverage, FOX advertises it quite a lot, it gets talked about around many
proverbial watercoolers (and in many online forums), and it gets a decent
amount of critical attention. Put all that together, and it means a hell of
a lot more than some silly meaningless set of numbers that don't even come
close to telling the whole story.
> I find most of the special and visual effects to be pretty simplistic on
> this show. Like the "scary" (yeah right!) faces in the last episode were
> so bad, I was laughing out loud. The Dream Stealing premise was just
> sad. And that entire anagram thing was just plain silly. Pick the first
> and last letters of a calling card that you got from people wearing Red,
> and you will spell out something important. Give me a break!
None of that is coherent, meaningful criticism. It's just name-calling. You
can call anything you want 'sad' or 'silly' without further explanation, and
throw in dismissive phrases like 'Yeah right!' and 'Give me a break!', all
you want, but none of it means anything if there's no justification for
*why* you feel that way, what it is that *makes* it so bad. Mocking can have
its place in legitimate criticism, but it has to be backed up by actual
reason. You can't just assume that your reader will agree that something
sucks, or even find any legitimacy in your view, just because you vehemently
proclaim that it does in simple, declarative sentences with no actual
reasoning to back it up.
> I keep
> watching this show hoping that it will get better, and it never does.
> After the last "bad" episode I think they have bored me for the last
> time. When the show comes back in November I will not be watching.
What happened to
> I guess I just enjoy Hating this show so much, that I am compelled to
> watch it. It's a fun show as long as you do not take it too seriously.
> The bad acting, and the bad writing, are some of the "best things" about
> this show. To me it is more of a comedy, than a drama, and I always get
> a few laughs from every episode. So now you know why I watch this show,
> and I will continue to watch it, until I get totally bored with it!
??? If one single episode, the very next one after you wrote that, made you
decide to stop watching, then that stuff must not have even meant anything
when you said it! It seems like you have immediately contradicted yourself.
One moment you say, 'I have a lot of fun hating this show, and I want to
continue doing so!', and then the next moment you turn around and say, 'This
is no fun anymore, I quit!' Did you really think the last episode was THAT
bad? Or has my criticism of your criticism spoiled your fun? Not to be a
dick and be mean to you, but I can't help it -- the first word that comes to
my mind is 'lame'.
Before I end this post, I feel compelled to clarify that I mean no personal
offence by any of this criticism. I actually like you, for the most part --
we've had some pretty fun exchanges, and I hope we can have more in the
future.
Sean Carroll
> Anyway, when I did the search I IMMEDIATELY got back this page, which lays
> out all the facts and points out that, given the changes in the TV
> industry of recent years, Fringe's premiere was 'an unqualified success,
> both quantitatively and especially culturally':
> http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=130903
Tempedammit! This link apparently doesn't work anymore, nor does there seem
to be any way to find that article elsewhere by searching.
Maybe you could find it by subscribing to that site and going through their
archives ... Yeah, you can search the http://adage.com/ site for "Fringe",
and then the article in question is one of the ones from September 2008. You
can probably read it if you become a subscriber.
I fucking HATE it when links go out of date. Essays that are still good,
years after they were written, can have their impact totally ruined by the
disappearance of a crucial corroborating reference that becomes a broken
link.
Sean Carroll
> The ratings also *still* do not take into account people who DVR shows to
> watch them later, despite widespread recognition that this is a *crucial*
> omission of a *very* important demographic.
And I just found a page that says estimates indicate that 'Fringe' was
DVRed, instead of watched live, 'at a higher percentage than any other major
broadcast show aside from Friday night geek-friendly series "Dollhouse."'
You can thank FOX for its consequent official ratings decrease. They put it
on Thursday, which is so jam-packed with other big shows -- not only 'CSI',
but 'Survivor', 'Grey's Anatomy', 'The Office', '30 Rock', 'Supernatural',
'The Mentalist', and 'Private Practice' -- many of which are watched by the
same kind of people who would be watching 'Fringe' if they didn't have so
much else to watch on Thursday.
Now, I don't watch any of those shows myself, so I kinda like having the
'Bones'/'Fringe' lineup on Thursday. But it's totally unfair to think that
'Fringe''s ratings losses, which immediately followed the move to Thursday,
have anything to do with it becoming unpopular. They have much more to do
with it being thrown up in competition against a boatload of shows with
long-established major audiences, which are *entirely* unfair competition.
'CSI' and 'Gray's Anatomy', particularly, have been around for years,
establishing some of the biggest audiences in all television. Putting
'Fringe' on in the same time slot as both of them is essentially giving it
the finger and shooting it in the head. Virtually NO show (short of
something like 'American Idol') could POSSIBLY succeed against that kind of
competition! It has no reflection at *all* on whether enough people like the
show to make it successful. A lot of people have probably reluctantly
dropped 'Fringe', merely because they're being forced to choose between too
many shows to watch on one night, who would still be watching it if they
weren't forced to make that choice by the idiotic network scheduling. And a
hell of a lot of others have *certainly* been forced to DVR it to watch
later because of all those hit shows crowding the schedule -- all of them
fans of the show, despite being completely ignored by the official ratings
calculations.
Sean Carroll
WG...@webtv.net
had over 9 million viewers. Now it is averaging around 6 milion. Between
the first season and now the show lost 3 million viewers! This is not
good for Fox, or the businessess that buy air time from Fox to sell
their products. If Fox promised them a certain amount of viewers, and
they do not get that amount they have to refund or compensate those
companies in some way to make up for the short fall. That hurts the
bottom line of both Fox, and the companies that buy time on Fox. Now I
know you hate the rating system but that is all they have right now to
go by, and they treat it like it is the "Bible", or something. If the
ratings come up short the Networks, and the companies all act
accordingly. Now to make matters even worse the lead in show to Fringe,
Bones is now averaging 9 million viewers an episode. So right after that
show airs 3 million Bones watchers switch the channel. Probably to CSI.
That is exactly what I will be doing now that Fringe no longer interests
me!
By the way I hope that "V" turns out be as good as the previews that
have been airing on ABC. Maybe we will finally get a real X-FIles clone
to talk about!
Sean Carroll
> Well you said it yourself in one of your posts when Fringe premiered it
> had over 9 million viewers. Now it is averaging around 6 milion. Between
> the first season and now the show lost 3 million viewers! This is not
> good for Fox, or the businessess that buy air time from Fox to sell
> their products. If Fox promised them a certain amount of viewers, and
> they do not get that amount they have to refund or compensate those
> companies in some way to make up for the short fall. That hurts the
> bottom line of both Fox, and the companies that buy time on Fox.
Fuck Fox. They're the ones who *caused* the ratings to plummet in the first
place by moving the show to Thursday, as I discussed in my last post. It's
*their fault*. Fox should be compensating the people on 'Fringe', not the
other way around.
> Now I
> know you hate the rating system but that is all they have right now to
> go by, and they treat it like it is the "Bible", or something. If the
> ratings come up short the Networks, and the companies all act
> accordingly.
All of this is true, but it doesn't make any of it right or fair. First of
all, they're idiots for treating the biased and unreliable ratings system as
a 'Bible' in the first place. Second of all, Fox in fact is NOT treating
'Fringe' like they treat other shows that 'come up short' -- in fact,
they're continuing to advertise it pretty heavily, and seem to be giving it
a chance to weather this ratings drop that could easily just be temporary.
Third of all, these companies and their management are already plenty rich
as it is, and it wouldn't kill them to actually choose whether a show should
be cancelled or not based on *rational* factors, instead of the fact that --
with only 4 or 5 major networks, depending on whether you count the CW -- a
show happens to make less money than only *two or three* other shows. That's
not failure; it's being in the Top Five. If they cancelled every show that
isn't number one or two in its timeslot, they'd cancel the overwhelming
majority of shows. There's no shame in being third or fourth best -- the
fact that you're better and more successful than hundreds of shows, on all
the other channels and in all the other timeslots, should be what matters,
not the incidental and random fact that there happen to be two or three
other shows on at the same time that get more viewers. And there's *no damn
reason* that shows need to be judged based on such rabid, cutthroat
competition against such a tiny number of other shows. Why can't they just
be evaluated on their merits as creative works? This is all a perfect
example of how unfair and corrupted any sort of even quasi-artistic
endeavour becomes when it's yoked to the cruel and harsh slavemaster of
capitalism, where everything's about worshipping ephemeral trends, and one
big corporation's bottom-line profit being slightly higher than another's,
instead of about providing a broad, diverse choice of quality entertainment.
Why can't they allow a show to have a numerically smaller but devoted
fanbase, instead of immediately cancelling it if it drops below the level of
a megamultimillionaire cash cow for even a second? Why can't they try to
build brand loyalty by being human beings, and respecting the shows they
air, instead of running everything based on mindless, ruthless calculations
by accountants where a show's entire worth is reduced to a single simplistic
number? Why must they be so obsessed with ranking every show on a stupid-ass
list, precisely and rabidly comparing the meaningless numbers they've
attached to them, always looking for an excuse to pander to the lowest
common denominator and destroy anything that falls below a certain arbitrary
number on their list?
When you recognise that all this is going on, but you simply shrug your
shoulders and say, 'That's the way it is', you're being complicit in an
atrocious disease that is ruining the television industry, and giving the
finger to any group of fans who dare to like a show based on its quality,
instead of its ratings.
> Now to make matters even worse the lead in show to Fringe,
> Bones is now averaging 9 million viewers an episode. So right after that
> show airs 3 million Bones watchers switch the channel. Probably to CSI.
And 6 million -- twice as many -- don't.
Of course, that totally ignores the many, many people who record all three
shows -- Bones, Fringe, and CSI -- and watch them all later, when they can
fast-forward through the commercials, when other activities they might be
engaged in that are more important than TV aren't a factor, and when they're
not tied down by the vagaries of arbitrary network scheduling and forced to
watch the shows when the *network executives* want them to, like little
zombie sheep. This, in fact, is exactly what *I* do.
WG...@webtv.net
numbers" the actual number of people who watch the shows live, and not
recorded. They know that recorded shows are bad for business, because
most people do the same thing you do, and fast forward through all the
commercials. So the commercials that they pay big bucks for are wasted
on people who watch recorded TV shows. So when a show has a rating of 6
million viewers it does not matter if they have 15 more million DVR
viewers. That does not really help the companies sell their products. As
long as the rating system is what it is there will always be shows that
are well received, with a lot of fans, cancelled early, because the hard
numbers are not there!
Remember when "Leonard Betts" X-File 4X14 had just under "17 million"
viewers on Jan 26 1997 right after the Super Bowl? That was an all time
high rating for an X-Files episode, and those were "hard" numbers. The
advertisers, and companies, loved the numbers. I think that one episode
secured the future of the X-Files for five more years, even though it
never saw numbers that high again.
Sean Carroll
> Well the companies, and advertisers are only interested in the "hard
> numbers" the actual number of people who watch the shows live, and not
> recorded. They know that recorded shows are bad for business, because
> most people do the same thing you do, and fast forward through all the
> commercials. So the commercials that they pay big bucks for are wasted
> on people who watch recorded TV shows. So when a show has a rating of 6
> million viewers it does not matter if they have 15 more million DVR
> viewers. That does not really help the companies sell their products. As
> long as the rating system is what it is there will always be shows that
> are well received, with a lot of fans, cancelled early, because the hard
> numbers are not there!
And we just keep coming up to bang our heads against the same old brick wall
... Yes, that's all true. No, that doesn't make it fair or right; it's an
unjust system that should be eradicated. You seem to think that the mere
fact that it exists makes it okay.
I watch TV because I want to see what creative people like the makers of XF,
Bones, House, CSI, and Fringe have come up with to entertain me and make me
think and feel things. To be quite honest, I'm sorry, but I don't give the
tiniest fraction of a SHIT what does or doesn't help companies sell their
products.
Besides -- if people like me are fast-forwarding through the commercials,
it's obviously because we're NOT INTERESTED in them. What is the point in
trying to force us to sit through them? We're not going to buy the products
anyway, because by definition, we're not interested! What do they think we
are, mindless zombies who will immediately run out and buy something we
don't need or want just because someone made us watch a stupid commercial?
Show the commercials to the people who *want* to see them; leave the rest of
us the fuck alone! You're just uselessly throwing droplets of water into a
gigantic fire that instantaneously vapourises them!
And shows are not 'brought to us by' the companies who buy commercial space
during them. They are brought to us by the actors, writers, directors,
producers, and crew members who work their asses off trying to make
something that's entertaining and worthwhile, not by a bunch of stupid
accountants and CEOs who sit on their asses around a table, randomly pick a
show to advertise on, knowing nothing about it except its ratings, and then
pat themselves on the back.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
'I am extremely disappointed. I send you out for exciting new designer
drugs, and you come back with tomato sauce.'
--Dr Gregory House
[looking at a child's toy] 'Okay, elephants are not purple. This is WRONG.'
--Dr Temperance Brennan
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]And shows are not 'brought to us by' the
] companies who buy commercial space during
] them. They are brought to us by the actors,
] writers, directors, producers, and crew
] members who work their asses off trying to
] make something that's entertaining and
] worthwhile, not by a bunch of stupid
] accountants and CEOs who sit on their asses
] around a table, randomly pick a show to
] advertise on, knowing nothing about it except
] its ratings, and then pat themselves on the
] back.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, etc! Who do you think pays for TV anyway? It is the
companies who advertise on all of these shows. The companies pay the
networks for air time, and the networks use some of that money to pay
the studios for TV shows. So it is the ads, and commericals from
companies that make all of this TV stuff possible. How did you think the
writers, and directors, and actors got paid for all of their hard work?
It all comes down to TV advertising, if the companies did not advertise
on TV there would not be any TV. Think about that the next time you fast
forward through a bunch of commercials. Of course there is always Cable
with "no commercials", but then you do pay for that! So Free TV is paid
for by the companies that advertize on it, and Cable TV is paid for by
the subscribers.
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]Second of all, Fox in fact is NOT treating
] 'Fringe' like they treat other shows that 'come
] up short' -- in fact, they're continuing to
] advertise it pretty heavily, and seem to be
] giving it a chance to weather this ratings drop
] that could easily just be temporary.
Maybe this news will cheer you up a little!
Will Dollhouse, Brothers, Fringe, Bones, Glee, American Dad, The
Simpsons, The Cleveland Show, Family Guy, House, Lie To Me, Til Death be
Renewed or Canceled? Through October 18 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings,
Television Show
Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com
Sean Carroll
> Maybe this news will cheer you up a little!
>
> Will Dollhouse, Brothers, Fringe, Bones, Glee, American Dad, The
> Simpsons, The Cleveland Show, Family Guy, House, Lie To Me, Til Death be
> Renewed or Canceled? Through October 18 - TV Ratings, Nielsen Ratings,
> Television Show
> Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com
>
> Address:http://phonifier.wtv-zone.org/index.php?i=1&m=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftvbythenumbers.com%2F2009%2F10%2F20%2Ffringe-down-but-not-out%2F31030
Cool. But it would be really nice if you'd start putting a space after
'Address:' when you post URLs -- it would make them ten times quicker and
easier to access. Better yet, just leave that 'Address:' part out
entirely -- what purpose does it serve? If it starts with http:// , it's
obviously not a phone number.
A serious and detailed response to your last post about advertising and the
TV industry will hopefully be coming forth at some point soon, but I just
don't have the free time right now.
--
--Sean
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1062439264&ref=profile
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
'I am extremely disappointed. I send you out for exciting new designer
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]Ratings | TVbytheNumbers.com
Address:http://phonifier.wtv-zone.org/index.php
?i=1&m=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftvbythenumbers.com%2F2009%2F10%2F20%2Ffringe-down-but-not-out%2F31030
]Cool. But it would be really nice if you'd start
] putting a space after 'Address:' when you post
] URLs -- it would make them ten times quicker
] and easier to access. Better yet, just leave
] that 'Address:' part out entirely -- what ]purpose] does it serve? If
it starts with http:// ,
] it's obviously not a phone number.
Well on Webtv that address does not even get highlighted only the URL.
So I can just click on it, and go right to the link. Is there some major
problem with a computer accessing the URL that I am not aware of? If so
I can always delete the address part.
Sean Carroll
>> Cool. But it would be really nice if you'd start
>> putting a space after 'Address:' when you post
>> URLs -- it would make them ten times quicker
>> and easier to access. Better yet, just leave
>> that 'Address:' part out entirely -- what purpose does it serve? If
>> it starts with http:// , it's obviously not a phone number.
>Well on Webtv that address does not even get highlighted only the URL.
>So I can just click on it, and go right to the link. Is there some major
>problem with a computer accessing the URL that I am not aware of? If so
>I can always delete the address part.
The inclusion of the (unspaced) 'Address:' stops the link from being
highlighted on real computers, so you can't just click on it. And when you
copy and paste the URL, you have to be careful not to include 'Address:'
with it, which makes it a more complicated task than it should be.
If you decide not to drop the 'Address:' all together, at least put a space
in right after to separate it from the URL, so the link will actually be
clickable. But dropping it entirely would be better.
Oh, and by the way ... You probably wouldn't be having these issues if you
got a *real* ISP ...
WG...@webtv.net
] sean...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
]The inclusion of the (unspaced) 'Address:'
] stops the link from being highlighted on real
] computers, so you can't just click on it. And
] when you copy and paste the URL, you have
] to be careful not to include 'Address:' with it,
] which makes it a more complicated task than
] it should be.
]If you decide not to drop the 'Address:' all
] together, at least put a space in right after to
] separate it from the URL, so the link will
] actually be clickable. But dropping it entirely
] would be better.
]Oh, and by the way ... You probably wouldn't
] be having these issues if you got a *real* ISP
What issues? I am not having any issues, it all works fine on my Webtv!
And my ISP is MSN, isn't that 'real' enough?
I will delete the address portion from my links from now on so that you
'computer people' will not have any issues! ;-)
Sean Carroll
>>Oh, and by the way ... You probably wouldn't
>> be having these issues if you got a *real* ISP
> What issues? I am not having any issues, it all works fine on my Webtv!
Ah, but the true point, grasshopper, is how it works for the people who
*read* your messages.
> And my ISP is MSN, isn't that 'real' enough?
Is WebTV not its own separate ISP? I thought it was. Okay, so, replace 'ISP'
with 'user interface'.
> I will delete the address portion from my links from now on so that you
> 'computer people' will not have any issues! ;-)
Tanx a bunch!
Alan McHurshman
> ]7:07am (PDT+3) From:
> ] seanc...@hotmail.com (Sean Carroll)
> ]The inclusion of the (unspaced) 'Address:'
> ] stops the link from being highlighted on real
> ] computers, so you can't just click on it. And
> ] when you copy and paste the URL, you have
> ] to be careful not to include 'Address:' with it,
> ] which makes it a more complicated task than
> ] it should be.
> And my ISP is MSN, isn't that 'real' enough?
Oh will you two stop writing so much. Pages and
pages of stuff I'll never read! Don't you know that the
internet is running out of space! We must concerve
bandwidth or risk missing the next Doctor Who
download!!!
--
AlanH
{insert smiley face here}