Whilst we're in the process of discussing timeshift/online viewing, part of me wonders whether it's relevant in shows targeting the 16-24 demographic, as quite a number of E4 shows do poorly/reasonably when broadcast, but feature predominately in 4oD's most watched list. It's hit and miss as to whether they get renewed or not.
The Ratings Thread (Part 39)
104 of 127
Here's the full table of broadcaster shares:
What's interesting is the amount the BBC has dropped compared to ITV. ITV's digital channels have held/propped up very very well!
K
Code:
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 BBC 38.5 38.28 36.65 35.21 34.46 34.01 33.54 32.65 33.17 33.19 ITV 24.87 24.66 24.14 24.13 23.12 23.21 23.23 23.13 22.86 23.09 Channel4 10.81 10.36 10.48 11 12.09 11.71 11.57 11.24 11.18 11.31 BSkyB 6.04 6.35 6.45 6.36 6.73 6.36 6.02 6.88 6.61 8.71 Channel5 6.29 6.46 6.57 6.43 5.87 5.99 6.08 6.12 5.91 5.92 UKChannelMgt 2.17 2.27 2.5 2.68 2.99 3.15 3.46 3.73 3.86 3.93 Discovery 1.08 1.2 1.39 1.58 1.39 1.17 1.21 1.3 1.55 1.57 WaltDisney. 0.6 0.6 0.68 0.65 0.89 1.04 1.26 1.37 1.26 1.37 Turner 1.02 1.18 1.23 1.07 0.9 0.87 0.81 0.82 0.8 0.97 Nickelodeon 0.79 0.79 0.88 0.94 1.08 1.09 1.2 1.12 0.86 0.86 Paramount 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.45 0.51 0.54 0.66 0.68 0.7 MTV 0.72 0.83 0.89 0.9 0.77 0.67 0.65 0.72 0.61 0.69 CSCMedia 0.01 0.1 0.23 0.42 0.51 0.52 0.48 0.5 0.66 0.65 NBCUniversal 0.39 0.47 0.6 0.58 0.48 0.62 0.7 0.68 0.57 0.58 BoxTelevision 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.62 0.56 0.59 0.5 0.54 CBS 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.26 0.3 0.28 0.28 0.39 0.51 AETN 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.39 0.4 0.43 0.47 DolphinTV - - - 0.01 0.06 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 LivingTV 1.38 1.41 1.73 1.97 2.03 2.29 2.36 2.5 2.45 - Others 4.12 3.78 4.29 4.83 5.14 5.44 5.53 5.18 5.53 4.79 Main 80.47 79.76 77.84 76.77 75.54 74.92 74.42 73.14 73.12 73.51 Rest 19.53 20.24 22.16 23.23 24.46 25.08 25.58 26.86 26.88 26.49
K
Originally Posted by SamuelW:
“Derek, would you watch the most amazing show in the world if it was not available on HD? Or is HD an absolute must? I dont see the big fuss about HD but I know youre a big fan
”
“Derek, would you watch the most amazing show in the world if it was not available on HD? Or is HD an absolute must? I dont see the big fuss about HD but I know youre a big fan
”
Yes. I watch Daily Politics and Andrew Marr (although that was HD from yesterday).
I watch The Great British Bake Off that has only been in HD this year and my favourite ITV show of recent years was TV Burp, which was never in HD.
So yes.
All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how? 6.8 or so million overnight, definitely more when time-shifts and PVR are taken into account. Also BBC One HD viewing figures. Doctor Who is doing phenomenally well, for a British television show.
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL.
So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment. In fact I think it is the complete opposite, there is a resurgence in it. Whether it is to your taste is objective.
In fact, if you were to ask me, it is the American Networks primetime dramas that are really struggling at the moment. Just take a look at the dramas nominated in the main category at the Emmys this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18901970
Not one of them is on any of the major networks. Cable has completely dominated that category for the first time ever. Many journalists on the other side of the Atlantic have picked up on this.
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...ows-its-range/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...nd-up-20120720
The fact of the matter is, drama on the main networks are just not THAT good. They are all failing to reach the height of the golden age of network dramas such as The West Wing, 24, Lost, first few seasons of Desperate Housewives. Not all of the dramas on network tv are bad. The Goodwife being an example of that. But quite a lot of it have been shoddily written recently. Once Upon A Time, one of ABC's highest rated shows this season, whilst addictive, is terrible written, and the CGI is all over the shop. Money and reality tv are a huge part of the decline in drama over in the States. Jersey Shore on MTV (a cable reality tv show) regularly gets higher ratings then any of the dramas on the major networks. Only comedies seem to do well for the networks, which is mirrored in the nominations at the Emmys.
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL.
So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment. In fact I think it is the complete opposite, there is a resurgence in it. Whether it is to your taste is objective.
In fact, if you were to ask me, it is the American Networks primetime dramas that are really struggling at the moment. Just take a look at the dramas nominated in the main category at the Emmys this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18901970
Not one of them is on any of the major networks. Cable has completely dominated that category for the first time ever. Many journalists on the other side of the Atlantic have picked up on this.
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...ows-its-range/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...nd-up-20120720
The fact of the matter is, drama on the main networks are just not THAT good. They are all failing to reach the height of the golden age of network dramas such as The West Wing, 24, Lost, first few seasons of Desperate Housewives. Not all of the dramas on network tv are bad. The Goodwife being an example of that. But quite a lot of it have been shoddily written recently. Once Upon A Time, one of ABC's highest rated shows this season, whilst addictive, is terrible written, and the CGI is all over the shop. Money and reality tv are a huge part of the decline in drama over in the States. Jersey Shore on MTV (a cable reality tv show) regularly gets higher ratings then any of the dramas on the major networks. Only comedies seem to do well for the networks, which is mirrored in the nominations at the Emmys.
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:
Quote:
“Those drama nominees — "Boardwalk Empire"(HBO), "Breaking Bad"(AMC), "Downton Abbey" (PBS),"Game of Thrones" (HBO),"Homeland" (Showtime) and"Mad Men" (AMC) — illustrate the widening gap between cable — with its deep pockets, unfettered restraints and shorter seasons — and traditional broadcast (network) TV”
“Those drama nominees — "Boardwalk Empire"(HBO), "Breaking Bad"(AMC), "Downton Abbey" (PBS),"Game of Thrones" (HBO),"Homeland" (Showtime) and"Mad Men" (AMC) — illustrate the widening gap between cable — with its deep pockets, unfettered restraints and shorter seasons — and traditional broadcast (network) TV”
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Whilst we're in the process of discussing timeshift/online viewing, part of me wonders whether it's relevant in shows targeting the 16-24 demographic”
“Whilst we're in the process of discussing timeshift/online viewing, part of me wonders whether it's relevant in shows targeting the 16-24 demographic”
I think it is. I'm within that category and I rarely watch 'live tv' so to speak. I PVR Revenge on E4 and watch it an hour later. I also watch quite a lot of things on 4od and the iplayer. This is where the younger generation are. So therefore, surely, some of the advertising, targeting my generation, should follow suit.
Originally Posted by lala:
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how? 6.8 or so million overnight, definitely more when time-shifts and PVR are taken into account. Also BBC One HD viewing figures. Doctor Who is doing phenomenally well, for a British television show.
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL....
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:”
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how? 6.8 or so million overnight, definitely more when time-shifts and PVR are taken into account. Also BBC One HD viewing figures. Doctor Who is doing phenomenally well, for a British television show.
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL....
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:”
Top Gear brings in a hell of a lot of money for BBCW, probably more than 'Come Dancing' and 'Dr. Who'.
Breaking Bad was not a good example. AMC, home of Mad Men, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, recently pissed off all three of it's showrunners in money disputes. Which ended with Matthew Wiener's Mad Men getting $1m per episode, Breaking Bad got a reasonable amount and The Walking Dead saw it's budget culled to accommodate (despite being the highest rated cable drama in the US and receiving similar levels of acclaim), after the incident AMC fired TWD's showrunner over the dispute, to the point where parts of last season were near unwatchable.
What kind of zombie show has half a season where less than 5 zombies per episode appeared? Despite this, it was one of the only show on US TV where the viewership increased throughout the season, Thankfully AMC appear to have seen sense and increased the shows' budget for season 3
Originally Posted by lala:
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how? 6.8 or so million overnight, definitely more when time-shifts and PVR are taken into account. Also BBC One HD viewing figures. Doctor Who is doing phenomenally well, for a British television show.
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL.
So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment. In fact I think it is the complete opposite, there is a resurgence in it. Whether it is to your taste is objective.
In fact, if you were to ask me, it is the American Networks primetime dramas that are really struggling at the moment. Just take a look at the dramas nominated in the main category at the Emmys this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18901970
Not one of them is on any of the major networks. Cable has completely dominated that category for the first time ever. Many journalists on the other side of the Atlantic have picked up on this.
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...ows-its-range/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...nd-up-20120720
The fact of the matter is, drama on the main networks are just not THAT good. They are all failing to reach the height of the golden age of network dramas such as The West Wing, 24, Lost, first few seasons of Desperate Housewives. Not all of the dramas on network tv are bad. The Goodwife being an example of that. But quite a lot of it have been shoddily written recently. Once Upon A Time, one of ABC's highest rated shows this season, whilst addictive, is terrible written, and the CGI is all over the shop. Money and reality tv are a huge part of the decline in drama over in the States. Jersey Shore on MTV (a cable reality tv show) regularly gets higher ratings then any of the dramas on the major networks. Only comedies seem to do well for the networks, which is mirrored in the nominations at the Emmys.
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:”
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how? 6.8 or so million overnight, definitely more when time-shifts and PVR are taken into account. Also BBC One HD viewing figures. Doctor Who is doing phenomenally well, for a British television show.
In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far. Huge cult success that brings in millions for BBC Worldwide- I think only the 'Come Dancing' franchise comes close to bringing in the amount of money that DW does. It also pulls in the type of demographic that The X Factor would kill for, hence the reason why overnights might seem slightly low, this demographic is probably more use to watching the show on the iplayer etc. I Sky+ it myself.
In fact, British drama is doing incredibly well abroad. Especially in the States on cable television. Luther is one of BBC America's highest rated shows. Both it and Sherlock have been nominated in the 'Outstanding Miniseries or Movie' category at this years Primetime Emmy Awards. Downtown Abbey is probably the biggest British hit State-wise for a while. It is PBS's most watched show. And is also competing in the main Drama category at this years Emmys.
Now of course, there will be some of you that will say that the critical acclaim and awards probably don't mean anything in reality. Well it does, it certainly helps in DVD/blu-ray sales, itunes sales. Creates more awareness and therefore brings in more cold hearted cash for the production companies. I believe Downtown Abbey was even parodied on SNL.
So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment. In fact I think it is the complete opposite, there is a resurgence in it. Whether it is to your taste is objective.
In fact, if you were to ask me, it is the American Networks primetime dramas that are really struggling at the moment. Just take a look at the dramas nominated in the main category at the Emmys this year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18901970
Not one of them is on any of the major networks. Cable has completely dominated that category for the first time ever. Many journalists on the other side of the Atlantic have picked up on this.
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/0...ows-its-range/
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul...nd-up-20120720
The fact of the matter is, drama on the main networks are just not THAT good. They are all failing to reach the height of the golden age of network dramas such as The West Wing, 24, Lost, first few seasons of Desperate Housewives. Not all of the dramas on network tv are bad. The Goodwife being an example of that. But quite a lot of it have been shoddily written recently. Once Upon A Time, one of ABC's highest rated shows this season, whilst addictive, is terrible written, and the CGI is all over the shop. Money and reality tv are a huge part of the decline in drama over in the States. Jersey Shore on MTV (a cable reality tv show) regularly gets higher ratings then any of the dramas on the major networks. Only comedies seem to do well for the networks, which is mirrored in the nominations at the Emmys.
Fact is, networks are losing money, advertising is down somewhat, and cable tv channels just have more money to throw at a project, such as Breaking Bad, than network. They also don't have the same prissy constraints of the PCC (their prudish version of ofcom) than the networks do. This quote I found very telling the LA Times:”
I also notice the same anti sci-fi bias in Hollywood in those nominations that Star Trek: The Next Generation suffered as well in its heyday (despite getting large TV ratings), that Doctor Who (in the US at least) is suffering today. In short, why do the powers that be in Hollywood don't give mainstream awards and nominations to Sci-Fi TV and movies?
Originally Posted by lala:
“I think it is. I'm within that category and I rarely watch 'live tv' so to speak. I PVR Revenge on E4 and watch it an hour later. I also watch quite a lot of things on 4od and the iplayer. This is where the younger generation are. So therefore, surely, some of the advertising, targeting my generation, should follow suit.”
“I think it is. I'm within that category and I rarely watch 'live tv' so to speak. I PVR Revenge on E4 and watch it an hour later. I also watch quite a lot of things on 4od and the iplayer. This is where the younger generation are. So therefore, surely, some of the advertising, targeting my generation, should follow suit.”
Crap. I completely screwed up that sentence, I really need to start proof reading (I say that a lot, but I never do. let's try again...
Quote:
“Whilst we're in the process of discussing timeshift/online viewing, part of me wonders whether it's more relevant in shows targeting the 16-24 demographic, as quite a number of E4 shows do poorly/reasonably when broadcast, but feature predominately in 4oD's most watched list. It's hit and miss as to whether they get renewed or not.”
“Whilst we're in the process of discussing timeshift/online viewing, part of me wonders whether it's more relevant in shows targeting the 16-24 demographic, as quite a number of E4 shows do poorly/reasonably when broadcast, but feature predominately in 4oD's most watched list. It's hit and miss as to whether they get renewed or not.”
Originally Posted by Iqbal_M:
“I also notice the same anti sci-fi bias in Hollywood in those nominations that Star Trek: The Next Generation suffered as well in its heyday (despite getting large TV ratings), that Doctor Who (in the US at least) is suffering today. In short, why do the powers that be in Hollywood don't give mainstream awards and nominations to Sci-Fi TV and movies?”
“I also notice the same anti sci-fi bias in Hollywood in those nominations that Star Trek: The Next Generation suffered as well in its heyday (despite getting large TV ratings), that Doctor Who (in the US at least) is suffering today. In short, why do the powers that be in Hollywood don't give mainstream awards and nominations to Sci-Fi TV and movies?
”
Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
But sci-fi is like any other from of drama, in that the same emotions can be conveyed to the viewer, such as; happiness, sadness, suspense, love, etc as any other genre. Further the production values on say Doctor Who or Star Trek are in my opinion on par with say The West Wing, Mad Men, or Downton Abbey.
Originally Posted by Andy Parish:
“If the actual figures were also down then yes, but they weren't.”
“If the actual figures were also down then yes, but they weren't.”
Erm... yes they were. Not by much admittedly but they were down.
Quote:
“You have to look at the numbers + share in context.”
“You have to look at the numbers + share in context.”
Unless we're talking about The X Factor apparently.
Originally Posted by grimshaw:
“Simply put - Doctor Who can only be looked at from a wider angle, there will be highs and lows worth discussing. But across all the ratings. Any other show which does similar will be treated the same.”
“Simply put - Doctor Who can only be looked at from a wider angle, there will be highs and lows worth discussing. But across all the ratings. Any other show which does similar will be treated the same.”
I apologise. I keep forgetting that there are ratings rules that apply to Doctor Who and only Doctor Who that can't possibly be applied universally. That would be insanity. You're right its best that we just continue to ignore Doctor Who's overnights and only focus on its officials and iPlayer stats but not apply that standard to any other show which we can readily and easily judge on overnights alone. Good call.
Originally Posted by centauri72:
“Good - we are agreed. It isn't.”
“Good - we are agreed. It isn't.”
You say this as if anyone is actually suggesting that its overnights are terrible relative to every other show on television. This is a recurring strawman that crops up whenever there's a discussion of Doctor Who's ratings.
Quote:
“OK. The final official figure for Accused published today on the BARB website shows that it got 5.47 million viewers - and that is a good total, and better than its overnights displayed. Satisfied? Can we now make the same point about Doctor Who too?”
“OK. The final official figure for Accused published today on the BARB website shows that it got 5.47 million viewers - and that is a good total, and better than its overnights displayed. Satisfied? Can we now make the same point about Doctor Who too?”
No. Accused is one show on the BBC. That's not applying the criteria consistently across the BBC is it.
Quote:
“It only doesn't matter if you are trying to sustain your (misplaced) argument that Doctor Who is losing viewers.”
“It only doesn't matter if you are trying to sustain your (misplaced) argument that Doctor Who is losing viewers.”
More strawman. Who made this argument?
Quote:
“That - and not your theory that viewers are getting less enchanted with the programme - is why the timeshifts are so large.”
“That - and not your theory that viewers are getting less enchanted with the programme - is why the timeshifts are so large.”
Firstly that's not my theory. Secondly I'm sure you have extensive research to evidence this definitive statement, yes?
Quote:
“That may be your point but it is wrong - for the reasons stated umpteen times. The overnight was up on the autumn season start last year. The most extraordinary thing about Doctor Who's official ratings is how they so rarely deviate from a very narrow range. On average it still gets almost exactly the same number of viewers it did in 2005. Very few other programmes can say that.”
“That may be your point but it is wrong - for the reasons stated umpteen times. The overnight was up on the autumn season start last year. The most extraordinary thing about Doctor Who's official ratings is how they so rarely deviate from a very narrow range. On average it still gets almost exactly the same number of viewers it did in 2005. Very few other programmes can say that.”
Yes a massively promoted (during the biggest event on British television in years no less) series opener featuring the shows most enduring, iconic and popular monsters facing basically no major competition in a timeslot fans have been asking for, for years should certainly have come in with an overnight of 6.4 million. What madness to suggest otherwise.
Also 'never deviates from a narrow range'? Last year it had a high of 8.8 million and a low of 6.7 million. On what planet is a 2 million fluctuation a 'narrow range'?
Quote:
“Good. Another point of agreement!”
“Good. Another point of agreement!”
Again you make it sound as if someone was suggesting Doctor Who was at death's door. No one was.
Quote:
“Finally, after accusing me of sidestepping your central argument, you promptly sidestepped mine...”
“Finally, after accusing me of sidestepping your central argument, you promptly sidestepped mine...”
I didn't sidestep it I completely ignored it because it had absolutely no relevance to anything I was actually saying.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“Call The Midwife was an absolute ratings beast for BBC1 getting massive overnights of 8m+ and huge timeshifts of 1.9m some weeks. The final episode had a massive rise in finals from 9.2m to 11.41m. Amazing!”
“Call The Midwife was an absolute ratings beast for BBC1 getting massive overnights of 8m+ and huge timeshifts of 1.9m some weeks. The final episode had a massive rise in finals from 9.2m to 11.41m. Amazing!”
Good to know. Thanks.
Originally Posted by lala:
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how?”
“All this talk on here of DW being in crisis, how?”
What talk of Doctor Who being in a crisis? Seriously what talk of Doctor Who being in a crisis? Please find for me the posts where people have declared that Doctor Who is in a crisis.
Quote:
“In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far.”
“In fact, it is doing even better in the States, it is currently 3rd on the USA itunes download charts, and BBC America's most watched show of the year so far.”
A massively relevant statistic to a discussion about Doctor Who's overnight perfomance on BBC1 and whether or not people should be applying the mantra that 'only officials' matter universally across the BBC and not just exclusively to Doctor Who. Or indeed its UK ratings in general. I find this habit of Doctor Who fans (or defenders) to just branch off into unrelated tangents or create brand new arguments no one is actually making somewhat frustrating.
Quote:
“So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment.”
“So I disagree with those stating that British drama is in a poor state at the moment.”
Who is saying that?
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
Good scifi can be every bit as thought provoking as good "real" drama. Episodes of BSG and Torchwood:CoE fall into this category, IMO.
K
Originally Posted by Iqbal_M:
“I also notice the same anti sci-fi bias in Hollywood in those nominations that Star Trek: The Next Generation suffered as well in its heyday (despite getting large TV ratings), that Doctor Who (in the US at least) is suffering today. In short, why do the powers that be in Hollywood don't give mainstream awards and nominations to Sci-Fi TV and movies?”
“I also notice the same anti sci-fi bias in Hollywood in those nominations that Star Trek: The Next Generation suffered as well in its heyday (despite getting large TV ratings), that Doctor Who (in the US at least) is suffering today. In short, why do the powers that be in Hollywood don't give mainstream awards and nominations to Sci-Fi TV and movies?
”
Because sci-fi is rarely as showy.
Its the same reason that Angela Lansbury was able to get 12 Emmy nominations for Murder, She Wrote but never win. As good as she might have been in the show she can't compete with the showier performances elsewhere. Sci-fi rarely has the overt showy stuff that award shows love.
Plus there's the whole snobby thing that writing sci-fi is easy because you just make stuff up to get yourself out of trouble. And to be fair Doctor Who does do that a lot.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?”
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?”
Does he?
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Breaking Bad was not a good example. AMC, home of Mad Men, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, recently pissed off all three of it's showrunners in money disputes. Which ended with Matthew Wiener's Mad Men getting $1m per episode, Breaking Bad got a reasonable amount and The Walking Dead saw it's budget culled to accommodate (despite being the highest rated cable drama in the US and receiving similar levels of acclaim), after the incident AMC fired TWD's showrunner over the dispute, to the point where parts of last season were near unwatchable.
What kind of zombie show has half a season where less than 5 zombies per episode appeared? Despite this, it was one of the only show on US TV where the viewership increased throughout the season, Thankfully AMC appear to have seen sense and increased the shows' budget for season 3”
“Breaking Bad was not a good example. AMC, home of Mad Men, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead, recently pissed off all three of it's showrunners in money disputes. Which ended with Matthew Wiener's Mad Men getting $1m per episode, Breaking Bad got a reasonable amount and The Walking Dead saw it's budget culled to accommodate (despite being the highest rated cable drama in the US and receiving similar levels of acclaim), after the incident AMC fired TWD's showrunner over the dispute, to the point where parts of last season were near unwatchable.
What kind of zombie show has half a season where less than 5 zombies per episode appeared? Despite this, it was one of the only show on US TV where the viewership increased throughout the season, Thankfully AMC appear to have seen sense and increased the shows' budget for season 3”
AMC's problem is that it isn't owned by a big studio like Fox, NBCUniversal, Turner etc so they have to be tight with budgets and shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad which aren't actually owned by them, they license it from Lionsgate and Sony so they don't any revenue. With The Waking Dead, they own it so they get any future revenue and zombies are an easier sell to viewers and foreign networks compared to ad mens in the 60s and a chemistry teacher who slowly become a drugs lord.
HBO renews show with middling ratings in the hope they become hopes later on and they own their shows so can sell them internationally and keep a cut of the revenue. Showtime and Starz also own some of the shows but also licences from studios.
Originally Posted by AlexiR:
“Yes a massively promoted (during the biggest event on British television in years no less) series opener featuring the shows most enduring, iconic and popular monsters facing basically no major competition in a timeslot fans have been asking for, for years should certainly have come in with an overnight of 6.4 million. What madness to suggest otherwise.”
“Yes a massively promoted (during the biggest event on British television in years no less) series opener featuring the shows most enduring, iconic and popular monsters facing basically no major competition in a timeslot fans have been asking for, for years should certainly have come in with an overnight of 6.4 million. What madness to suggest otherwise.”
What relevance is it that it's a timeslot fans have been asking for? The fans are the ones that will watch it in whatever timeslot it's placed. The fans were already watching.
Oh, and there's zero evidence to suggest that the Daleks = bigger ratings. In the 2007 series, the two Dalek episodes had the lowest ratings of the year (indeed, much lower than last Saturday's episode).
Originally Posted by Jonwo:
“AMC's problem is that it isn't owned by a big studio like Fox, NBCUniversal, Turner etc so they have to be tight with budgets and shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad which aren't actually owned by them, they license it from Lionsgate and Sony so they don't any revenue. With The Waking Dead, they own it so they get any future revenue and zombies are an easier sell to viewers and foreign networks compared to ad mens in the 60s and a chemistry teacher who slowly become a drugs lord.
HBO renews show with middling ratings in the hope they become hopes later on and they own their shows so can sell them internationally and keep a cut of the revenue. Showtime and Starz also own some of the shows but also licences from studios.”
“AMC's problem is that it isn't owned by a big studio like Fox, NBCUniversal, Turner etc so they have to be tight with budgets and shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad which aren't actually owned by them, they license it from Lionsgate and Sony so they don't any revenue. With The Waking Dead, they own it so they get any future revenue and zombies are an easier sell to viewers and foreign networks compared to ad mens in the 60s and a chemistry teacher who slowly become a drugs lord.
HBO renews show with middling ratings in the hope they become hopes later on and they own their shows so can sell them internationally and keep a cut of the revenue. Showtime and Starz also own some of the shows but also licences from studios.”
I think the problem is they have too many hits, which need a big budget to work. I think perhaps $1m an episode for Mad Men was far too much, especially since it performs quite poorly for them, even though they need it to stay alive for a while (Since BB is ending soon). The Walking Dead should've been given priority (and I'm surprised it wasn't), given it's a major money spinner, they make ALL the money from it, and it has achieved comparable levels of critical acclaim.
Originally Posted by Wynne Evans:
“I agree, the Tennant obsessives need to find closure and move on.”
“I agree, the Tennant obsessives need to find closure and move on.”
or in my case stop watching, I don't like Smith's portrayal of the Doctor, have tried to get into him but can't, same as I couldn't stand Colin Baker in the eighties. However, let him get on with being the Doctor and entertain his large army ofg fans.
Originally Posted by AlexiR:
“Does he?”
“Does he?”
The first showing of the series finale of Lemon La Vida Loca (truly appalling TV, no idea how it got commissioned) got over 1m on ITV2 and was ITV2's number 1 show for that week.
It's season premiere was the 11th most watched, the highest non-Olympic, multichannel show for that week.
Week 2, 4th highest multichannel (2nd non-Olympic)
Week 3, 15th highest multichannel
Week 4, 10th highest multichannel
Sure they aren't exactly brilliant, but he's still one of the highest rating comedians on TV.
Originally Posted by AlexiR:
“Also 'never deviates from a narrow range'? Last year it had a high of 8.8 million and a low of 6.7 million. On what planet is a 2 million fluctuation a 'narrow range'?”
“Also 'never deviates from a narrow range'? Last year it had a high of 8.8 million and a low of 6.7 million. On what planet is a 2 million fluctuation a 'narrow range'?”
Indeed. And yet when there is few hurdred thousand drop for the X-Factor it is a disaster.They seems to be an incredible amount of double standards going on.
Originally Posted by trickytree1979:
“Not including the opening ceremony, the reach (3min+) for paralympic programming now stands at nearly 28m individuals...so people are watching, just watching bits here and there.”
“Not including the opening ceremony, the reach (3min+) for paralympic programming now stands at nearly 28m individuals...so people are watching, just watching bits here and there.”
Interesting stat, and arguably a smart commercial decision. 3-4m a night for £9m compared to 8m-10m for a £60m outlay on the Olympics suggests the Paralympics is money well spent and hopefully C4 commit to Rio which they'd presumably get at a fraction of the cost.
Originally Posted by theonlyweeman:
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
“Keith Lemon gets large TV ratings, should we give him shitloads of awards?
I think it's because sci-fi isn't that serious and it can all be dismissed as fiction, whereas drama is much less easy to dismiss, as it tends to be more realistic and thought-provoking.”
Well somebody is giving them to him at the moment!!!
*Shameless plug alert*
How will Dallas do on it's return? What will win the Wednesday night battle of the channels? Will a Sunday showing for The X Factor boost it's ratings? How will the Last Night of the Proms perform this year?
Have a go at the Ratings Prediction Game and see how you fare against the rest in this Blind Week...
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=560
*End of shameless plug*
How will Dallas do on it's return? What will win the Wednesday night battle of the channels? Will a Sunday showing for The X Factor boost it's ratings? How will the Last Night of the Proms perform this year?
Have a go at the Ratings Prediction Game and see how you fare against the rest in this Blind Week...
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=560
*End of shameless plug*
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“*Shameless plug alert*
How will Dallas do on it's return? What will win the Wednesday night battle of the channels? Will a Sunday showing for The X Factor boost it's ratings? How will the Last Night of the Proms perform this year?
Have a go at the Ratings Prediction Game and see how you fare against the rest in this Blind Week...
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=560
*End of shameless plug*”
“*Shameless plug alert*
How will Dallas do on it's return? What will win the Wednesday night battle of the channels? Will a Sunday showing for The X Factor boost it's ratings? How will the Last Night of the Proms perform this year?
Have a go at the Ratings Prediction Game and see how you fare against the rest in this Blind Week...
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...&postcount=560
*End of shameless plug*”
I'm in no rush this week, forgive me.
Originally Posted by Andy23:
“#pogdogs is doing good business on Twitter at the moment so tomorrow's 8pm ratings might be strong”
“#pogdogs is doing good business on Twitter at the moment so tomorrow's 8pm ratings might be strong”
Twitter isn't really a good indicator, cos multiple times The Midnight Beast and Beaver Falls, related words and hashtags have trended, both still underperform(ed)
104 of 127
