|
||||||||
ITV and the great Harry Potter Overkill |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,459
|
I suppose the important factor for ITV is whether an expensive new production would get more viewers in a period when not many are watching TV. They can perhaps get more 'bums on seats' as fodder for the advertisers later next year.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 878
|
Quote:
Hoping they re-run the films through Easter week & Christmas 2017 just to annoy the op
![]() The point which I was trying to make, and which others have picked up on, is that this is very lazy programming designed to secure ITV some decent ratings, nothing more and nothing less. I understand why it may make commercial sense for them to do this but I don't have to like it. It indulges a very particular section of viewers but this is regrettably to the exclusion of many others. It's a practice which many other channels have adopted, showing blocks of the same programme one after the other, and it kind of does my head in. And yes, I do have a remote and I do know how to use it, but that's really not the point. What ITV have done is to diminish choice/variety and I think that is regrettable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
Exactly, can't understand people moaning about it. If you want to watch them, watch them. If you don't, there are plenty of other channels to watch. Don't go around moaning about it, just put something else on? Very odd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,539
|
Quote:
I guess they will re-run them pretty soon, and yes, it will probably irritate me again!
The point which I was trying to make, and which others have picked up on, is that this is very lazy programming designed to secure ITV some decent ratings, nothing more and nothing less. I understand why it may make commercial sense for them to do this but I don't have to like it. It indulges a very particular section of viewers but this is regrettably to the exclusion of many others. It's a practice which many other channels have adopted, showing blocks of the same programme one after the other, and it kind of does my head in. And yes, I do have a remote and I do know how to use it, but that's really not the point. What ITV have done is to diminish choice/variety and I think that is regrettable. It's not ideal, but it has worked for them ratings wise so as a commercial broadcaster I am comfortable on giving them the flexibility to do so! |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,571
|
Quote:
Enough is enough! Every bloody night a HP movie (and not so long since they were last shown). While I do get how popular the series is with a lot of people, is it not overkill subjecting the entire nation to this over such a condensed period? If I thought ITV would then rest them for a while I might just about accept it but you just know they won't.
![]() Quote:
So " Three million" is " Rated well"?
The OP is not in the minority, how many households can watch TV in the U.K.? But only 3 million watch the repeated HP overdose. The statement is ridiculous. Had ITV not been airing Harry Potter, they'd probably be airing original content to less than 2m viewers and you'd be criticising them then anyway (admittedly, rightly so). I'm sure you were expecting much worse than it is currently getting. |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,539
|
Quote:
"Subjecting the entire nation"? No one is being forced to watch the Harry Potter films. They have a loyal enough fanbase who enjoy watching them. Plus, it has been at least a year since they were last shown.
It got over 4m last night in primetime. For a film that has been repeated many times, that's not bad. Plus it got a lot of younger viewers. Had ITV not been airing Harry Potter, they'd probably be airing original content to less than 2m viewers and you'd be criticising them then anyway (admittedly, rightly so). I'm sure you were expecting much worse than it is currently getting. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,214
|
I'm a Potterhead but didn't watch any of the movies on TV as I have the DVDs of all of them. I prefer to watch it without ads every 20 minutes anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SouthWirral 1986-2002 & 2004-?
Posts: 7,070
|
Not really into Harry Potter that much but good that ITV are into showing fantasy movies as they also showed "The Lord Of The Rings - The Fellowship Of The Ring" for the first time on the big network on the Saturday before Christmas. Previously the LOTR films had only been on Channel 4.
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
Precisely, the BBC have been showing all the Indiana Jones movies (again), they could record them and watch those in place of Harry Potter.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
"Subjecting the entire nation"? No one is being forced to watch the Harry Potter films. They have a loyal enough fanbase who enjoy watching them. Plus, it has been at least a year since they were last shown.
It got over 4m last night in primetime. For a film that has been repeated many times, that's not bad. Plus it got a lot of younger viewers. Had ITV not been airing Harry Potter, they'd probably be airing original content to less than 2m viewers and you'd be criticising them then anyway (admittedly, rightly so). I'm sure you were expecting much worse than it is currently getting. Quote:
Of course he was, for this is a poster with a long history of dislike and disdain towards ITV.
19.5 % is considered good? Against a daringly risky animation Film on BBC that will get some to switch off without trying it. The poster I replied to said the OP was in the minority, but a viewing figure of 19.5% to me with my Maths qualifications shows that it's the minority viewing and 80% are not watching it. So the posters defending ITV saying the OP is incorrect, are plainly wrong. Strictly gets 13 million, ( 7.2 million Christmas Day) Planet Earth, 10 million, GBBO 13/15 million, I am a celebrity gets 11/12 million, how can 4.14 million 19.5-% be considered anything good, HP displaced Corrie which would get 7 million, so HP got 3 million to switch off/over. The defence of HP is hilarious, the ITV supports will use any trick, i.e. Compare to Indiana Jones, run at 2 pm for three days instead of daytime shows. BBC1 hasn't shown a film in primetime that's a rerun during Christmas. We all know this is lazy scheduling, and cheap schedules, a job lot on before, even if the defence is, on 18 months ago, that's on before. The BBC has put specials on, Johnathan Creek got 5.1 million last night. Rather than " defend" ITVs actions with facts, as the defence argument is weak, they have a personal go at the poster. We have had defence of ITV, well it's low advertising income time, wrong, Christmas is very important in retail, then the sales, then holiday booking season. Papers are full of adverts. 19.5 % is not viewer focused, its profit first focused, buy in rerun film rights cheap, have low expectations, turn a profit. Some are wowed by 19.5%, truth be told, that's 80% who are not happy. Run HP in the afternoons, fine, or late night, but 7.30 everynight is lazy and viewer contempt. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,571
|
Quote:
19.5 % is considered good? Against a daringly risky animation Film on BBC that will get some to switch off without trying it.
The poster I replied to said the OP was in the minority, but a viewing figure of 19.5% to me with my Maths qualifications shows that it's the minority viewing and 80% are not watching it. So the posters defending ITV saying the OP is incorrect, are plainly wrong. Strictly gets 13 million, ( 7.7 million Christmas Day) Planet Earth, 10 million, GBBO 13/15 million, I am a celebrity gets 11/12 million, how can 4.14 million 19.5-% be considered anything good, HP displaced Corrie which would get 7 million, so HP got 3 million to switch off/over. The defence of HP is hilarious, the ITV supports will use any trick, i.e. Compare to Indiana Jones, run at 2 pm for three days instead of daytime shows. BBC1 hasn't shown a film in primetime that's a rerun during Christmas. We all know this is lazy scheduling, and cheap schedules, a job lot on before, even if the defence is, on 18 months ago, that's on before. The BBC has put specials on, Johnathan Creek got 5.1 million last night. I don't understand why all this for a film repeat which someone dared to say was a decent rating. I've always seen you lambast ITV for scheduling like this, but I've never seen you give them credit for a good piece of scheduling/ratings. And before you say "ITV is beyond criticism", you'd rush to the BBC's defence if it was the other way round. Strictly got 7.2m on Christmas Day. Not 7.7m. |
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,571
|
Quote:
Of course he was, for this is a poster with a long history of dislike and disdain towards ITV.
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
For a film repeat, it's not a disaster as you're trying to make out it was. Why are you comparing a film repeat to some of the biggest shows on television this year?
![]() I've always seen you lambast ITV for scheduling like this, but I've never seen you give them credit for a good piece of scheduling/ratings. And before you say "ITV is beyond criticism", you'd rush to the BBC's defence if it was the other way round. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
I really shouldn't rise to the bait but...
![]() This is when they cannot put up a constructive defence, just label posters hoping to shut them up. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,571
|
Quote:
Maybe you don't read all my posts, plenty of posts praised ITV for Maigret on Christmas night, and Captain Phillips. It suits a few posters to have a go at the poster who tells the truth and discredit them with labels, but I didn't start this thread, I replied to a totally incorrect and made up post thst said the OP was in the minority, but if 19.5% watch HP then that's the minority at 80% choose something else, facts, without getting personal.
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,616
|
Quote:
For a film repeat, it's not a disaster as you're trying to make out it was. Why are you comparing a film repeat to some of the biggest shows on television this year?
I don't understand why all this for a film repeat which someone dared to say was a decent rating. I've always seen you lambast ITV for scheduling like this, but I've never seen you give them credit for a good piece of scheduling/ratings. And before you say "ITV is beyond criticism", you'd rush to the BBC's defence if it was the other way round. Strictly got 7.2m on Christmas Day. Not 7.7m. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,571
|
Quote:
It's quite honestly not worth the time trying to talk the user in question, who goes off on their anti-ITV propaganda just about everywhere. The user likes to plant bait, and is almost trolling. They won't listen to any reasoning and aren't interested in a discussion, so what's the point?
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 1,500
|
Quote:
But then, if they commissioned programming for this period at Christmas, would it rate as well as Harry Potter is? The sad fact is, it probably wouldn't.
They would get swallowed up by BBC1. Films are one of the few ways ITV can gener a good audience at Christmas during this period between New Year & Christmas. Just look at the dire programming last year when they didn't have Harry Potter. Quote:
It didn't last year. Last year ITV tried a whole host of original programming, which totally flopped. Clearly Harry Potter is what the audience want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
My point was the post I quoted was a ridiculously over-the-top response to Aaron claiming that the poster was in the minority. OK, perhaps that was the wrong term to use but the Harry Potter films are still one of (if not the) biggest film franchises to ever come out of this country. I think that's what he was alluding to rather than the rating itself.
When as you quote a Poster has an inappropriate attack on the OP saying they are in the minority, basic maths shows that is totally incorrect. 80% of viewers choose not to watch HP. I am a bit surprised on HP ratings I expected them to be a ITV default 2 million, those who for habit have ITV on whatsoever. Last night BBC1 did its PSB remit, and run a risk that the government demands on it, a primetime drama that's animated. Many would read up it's an animation and given it a miss before it started. A courageous decision to show it then and the viewers who stuck with it were well rewarded. But let's remember ITV should get a big audience against BBC1 on a PSB style risk. Some have got a bit over excited re HP ratings, it has done a bit better than expected, but Jonathan Creek got 5.1 million last night, Corrie would have got 7 million last night, in context HP as a maximum did OK, but lost three million ITV viewers that would have watched Corrie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 1,500
|
What we seeing is an acceptance to ITV rolling out the same films every Christmas, because it makes business sense, so if us the viewers accept it, why should ITV bother with new programming at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
What we seeing is an acceptance to ITV rolling out the same films every Christmas, because it makes business sense, so if us the viewers accept it, why should ITV bother with new programming at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,316
|
Quote:
It's quite honestly not worth the time trying to talk the user in question, who goes off on their anti-ITV propaganda just about everywhere. The user likes to plant bait, and is almost trolling. They won't listen to any reasoning and aren't interested in a discussion, so what's the point?
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: 4.14m (19.5%) Since when has 19.5% been a majority? You will say They won't listen to any reasoning and aren't interested in a discussion, but how can 19.5% with any reasoning, be a majority you said OP was the minority, that by FACTS is untrue. Again when your discussion can't be supported by evidence you then go to labels like almost trolling, knowing I am not trolling but actually posting the truth, that the few people who constantly defend ITV whatsoever will ignore and accept 19.5 as a goood rating when the programme it replaced, Corrie gets three million more! |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,616
|
Quote:
You, yourself did that, you accused the OP of being in the minority.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: 4.14m (19.5%) Since when has 19.5% been a majority? You will say They won't listen to any reasoning and aren't interested in a discussion, but how can 19.5% with any reasoning, be a majority you said OP was the minority, that by FACTS is untrue. Again when your discussion can't be supported by evidence you then go to labels like almost trolling, knowing I am not trolling but actually posting the truth, that the few people who constantly defend ITV whatsoever will ignore and accept 19.5 as a goood rating when the programme it replaced, Corrie gets three million more! Then again ADP, we all know you don't really care about the Potter films, it's about you finding any little way to continue your anti-ITV rhetoric. It's hilarious that you'll criticise people saying ITV can do no wrong (I'm not aware of anybody that does that), but you'll defend the BBC to its dying breath. Hypocrite. Finally, as a fan of Corrie, I can tell you that HP didn't replace Corrie, Corrie isn't on because of the extra episodes on over the Christmas period. The lack of Corrie this week will put the episodes back where they should be. Therefore, your entire final point has no legs whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,370
|
The truth is that Potter is rating better than most of the original programming ITV has put on this time of year in the past, and probably at a cheaper price too. Perhaps its greatest defence is the channel getting more than 30% of 16-34s last night across two and a half hours. If they can get these figures by showing a film repeat there's not much point in showing anything else. They'd just be spending more for less of a return. Also this way they have a favourable audience to promote their new January shows to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 1,500
|
Quote:
You, yourself did that, you accused the OP of being in the minority.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: 4.14m (19.5%) Since when has 19.5% been a majority? You will say They won't listen to any reasoning and aren't interested in a discussion, but how can 19.5% with any reasoning, be a majority you said OP was the minority, that by FACTS is untrue. Again when your discussion can't be supported by evidence you then go to labels like almost trolling, knowing I am not trolling but actually posting the truth, that the few people who constantly defend ITV whatsoever will ignore and accept 19.5 as a goood rating when the programme it replaced, Corrie gets three million more! ![]() But you can turn it on it's head and say that a 20% share is good for ITV these days. Who really knows? |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:31.







I don't understand why all this for a film repeat which someone dared to say was a decent rating. 