Worst Show Never to be Cancelled

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Once again, more bullshit....and from Larry of all people. I'm disappointed. That show was a beast during its time and had a killer following. Surely many found some kind of "quality" in it.

I guess.

That shit was awful, to me. Loathed that junk.

[f16harm]

I guess.

That shit was awful, to me. Loathed that junk.

Would it have changed your opinion if he was wearing the Hellboy getup when being portrayed as The Beast? Or vice versa, would the Hellboy movies have been good if Linda Hamilton would have been his love interest?

[BrntO4Life]

If these shows are "quality", and you, the Jambi of TV, represent that which is true and correct in your age ranges thoughts, why aren't more people watching. The physical numbers show no one is tuning in to this God forsaken horseshit on NBC save The Office.

I didn't say that I represent my demo as a whole. Clearly I don't.

The majority of my demo also has a horrible understanding of what is quality programming and what isn't. They only understand the things that are easiest to find, which is a testament to great marketing, not great content.

Please don't respond until you grasp the difference between marketing and actual content.

[f16harm]

I didn't say that I represent my demo as a whole. Clearly I don't.

The majority of my demo also has a horrible understanding of what is quality programming and what isn't. They only understand the things that are easiest to find, which is a testament to great marketing, not great content.

Please don't respond until you grasp the difference between marketing and actual content.

Who's changing definitions now? Sorry, but we aren't talking marketing up in this bitch. We're talking ratings and "quality". If I want to talk marketing I'll bust out the article on the Verizon guy who finally lost his job after 9 years of say listening to "Can you hear me now"...all while being queer.

You talked up the NBC comedies, and now you respond with a cop out post like that throwing your fellow cronies under the bus as not being able to understand the importance of quality because they were duped by "marketing." Which is it? NBC comedies are quality? Or no one is watching because they don't know quality because they were duped by marketing. Personally, I'm losing faith in your ability to tell me how to STFU.

[SethMode]

I'm really baffled that someone can argue for so long that popularity = quality. Seriously, it's stunning.

[SethMode]

Who's changing definitions now? Sorry, but we aren't talking marketing up in this bitch. We're talking ratings and "quality". If I want to talk marketing I'll bust out the article on the Verizon guy who finally lost his job after 9 years of say listening to "Can you hear me now"...all while being queer.

You talked up the NBC comedies, and now you respond with a cop out post like that throwing your fellow cronies under the bus as not being able to understand the importance of quality because they were duped by "marketing." Which is it? NBC comedies are quality? Or no one is watching because they don't know quality because they were duped by marketing. Personally, I'm losing faith in your ability to tell me how to STFU.

Seriously man, you need to relax. You're the angriest person I've ever met regarding this topic that isn't a fanboy of a particular TV show. His point is fairly simple, you're just stretching it to fit your own position (surprise there). He's saying that ratings as they are only truly useful to TV shows in order to determine the shows marketability. Higher ratings means more advertising revenue, simple as that. Now, higher ratings might make the show more marketable, but neither high ratings nor marketability are ways to determine the artistic (for lack of a better, broader word in this sense) quality of a program. It's just like how just because Mike Vick's jersey sold better than any other QB in the NFL last year doesn't mean he's the best QB in the NFL. Or as Houston mentioned, Lady Gaga isn't the best musical personality. It's not a tough distinction to make, yet you seem hell bent on jamming this square peg through a round hole, and insulting us all in the process because we're trying to make you aware of the fact that the peg is square and the hole is round.

Now, proceed with some lame insult about me going to school to perform surgeries on cats.

[f16harm]

It's not a tough distinction to make, yet you seem hell bent on jamming this square peg through a round hole, and insulting us all in the process because we're trying to make you aware of the fact that the peg is square and the hole is round.

or am I.

I do think, however, that there would be a high level of quality, if marketed correctly, for a show to appeal to all ages and endear them to the process of......performing surgery on cats. Deep in the psyche of everyone there seems to be a quality of helping animals in need, even if it were some odd and crazy Beast. Surely many people would find quality in this and you could probably score more viewers than NBC comedies.

[BrntO4Life]

You talked up the NBC comedies, and now you respond with a cop out post like that throwing your fellow cronies under the bus as not being able to understand the importance of quality because they were duped by "marketing." Which is it? NBC comedies are quality? Or no one is watching because they don't know quality because they were duped by marketing. Personally, I'm losing faith in your ability to tell me how to STFU.

No one's telling you to shut up, I'm just asking you to use your inside voice.

Not all NBC comedies are quality. I'm not going to re-state my earlier post. Stop being lazy.

What more do you want me to say? Good content isn't driven by ratings. People working on-set don't consider your "hidden psychology" while working hard to make the best television program they know how. Sometimes it works, often times it doesn't. That's life.

The shows that are "stickiest" typically derive from a producer/manager simply looking for something that sells. They're drawn up in executive boardrooms where "stickiness" reigns supreme. All of reality TV begins in a boardroom.

However, most written episodic programming begins with a writer's brain and a pen/laptop. Pilots are created and content is king. Whether or not said content is "quality" depends on the talent involved.

Just like record sales shouldn't be viewed as a qualitative indicator, Nielsen ratings shouldn't either. Yes, taste is subjective, but we as humans have built up basic parameters for judging content. Your inability to comprehend that is beyond asinine and your half-wit responses have all but proven it.

Let's give a real-world example for good measure:

My mother doesn't care much about music. She doesn't make any attempts to see what exists in the vast and near-endless pantheon of records that have been and will be created. This is fine.

To that end, my mother only listens to music on the radio in the car because of it's ease of accessibility. It's right in front of her and all she has to do is turn the car on. No extra process of finding the correct station (and she has Sirius/XM to boot!), no research in her off time finding records/discs she will thoroughly enjoy, nothing. It's simple, easy, and stupid.

This isn't to say she's a bad person for not having acquired a taste for music, she just simply doesn't.

And that's where the record labels come in. They pay tons of money to produce artists and albums with the broadest appeal possible in order to make the most money possible. Because the majority of people are like my mother, occupied by other things (like raising my sister and I) in life to afford themselves the luxury of frequently researching music, the majority of people only want art at arms length. Labels pay these huge sums largely for distribution and marketing purposes in order to create a normative of quality that is often lower than expected. After all, it's exponentially more difficult, time-consuming, and financially burdensome to actually create something of artistic value in the face of enormous profits (this is, of course, before piracy).

The same applies to film and television. Last year, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse grossed a little over $300 million at the box office. In comparison, Black Swan grossed $106 million. Does that mean Eclipse has a better constructed story with characters more developed and engaging than Black Swan? Does that mean that the cinematography, direction, and overall aesthetic was received as well as Black Swan? Clearly not.

In much the same way American Idol's 21 million viewers says nothing about it's overall quality as a production over Parks & Recreation and it's measly 5 million viewers.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Why are we wasting time with this dope? He has taken what was originally nothing more than a fun parody thread (of the "Best Shows To Get Cancelled" thread), and turned it into some ultra serious breakdown of neilson ratings (and how they somehow equate to quality, which nobody agrees with for obvious reasons). To make matters worse, he comes in with the personal attacks, accentuated with his "i'm smarter than anyone else in the room" attitude due to his supposed "connections" (that he only refers to cryptically), which again, really have no bearing on the discussion.

Lots of old ladies and housewives watched "Beauty & The Beast", so it must have been high quality television. Psychological and shit.

[Berowsk]

Everybody needs to step back, read a conversation, and formulate their own opinions. F16 is spot on in all his arguments. Ratings do matter! Obviously a show with a higher rating will last longer on the air because it's getting ratings! How can you guys not see this?

Ratings also depict popularity, even better than sources such as IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. Anything that lets a user base provide an opinion will have more people venting (or in this case, giving a bad review) than people logging on to say how great it was. 99% of the people surveyed in the "ratings" are watching the said show for entertainment. The mean rating will reflect some kind of discrepancy week to week, but there are people that are hired to relate ratings from week to week to determine how much an audience likes a show. Obviously, you all were not following the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien debacle closely.

Lay off F16. Everybody is claiming that he made stupid points, but not once did he bring up any of the points that he was accused of. Just because everybody is hopping on him for expressing his viewpoints doesn't mean you have to, too. Think for yourself for once.

This is one of the most pompous, arrogant, self delusional posts I've ever seen in the history of MM/VSN. And imagine the ground that covers.

Yeah, spare us the deep psychological breakdown on the quality of highly rated programming such as Two and a Half Men, Jersey Shore, and Bones. Shucks, our simple minds couldn't handle it anyhow! Guffaw, guffaw.

This is a very ironic post. First, you accuse F16 of being pompous, arrogant and self-delusional. After that, you proceed to say in another post (and even imply in this one!) that people who watch popular shows don't matter compared to what you think is "quality."

[Warner2BruceTD]

Everybody needs to step back, read a conversation, and formulate their own opinions. F16 is spot on in all his arguments. Ratings do matter! Obviously a show with a higher rating will last longer on the air because it's getting ratings! How can you guys not see this?

Who is saying otherwise?

Did you really read the entire thread, and miss the theme of the debate?

[BrntO4Life]

Everybody needs to step back, read a conversation, and formulate their own opinions. F16 is spot on in all his arguments. Ratings do matter! Obviously a show with a higher rating will last longer on the air because it's getting ratings! How can you guys not see this?

Ratings also depict popularity, even better than sources such as IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. Anything that lets a user base provide an opinion will have more people venting (or in this case, giving a bad review) than people logging on to say how great it was. 99% of the people surveyed in the "ratings" are watching the said show for entertainment. The mean rating will reflect some kind of discrepancy week to week, but there are people that are hired to relate ratings from week to week to determine how much an audience likes a show.

:lolwut:

Are you and f16 cut from the same dense mold? Did you read the title of the thread?

We're talking about awful shows that never got cancelled. Of course ratings depict the popularity of a show. However, they don't reveal ease of access and lack of quality.

You two should start a thread where you only speak in "herp derp".

EDIT: I should make it clear I'm not angry with you, but it's silly for you to come in and comment when it's clear you haven't kept up with the discussion. f16harm has been stating that Nielsen ratings accurately detail the "quality" of a program's content, when clearly it does not.

[f16harm]

EDIT: I should make it clear I'm not angry with you, but it's silly for you to come in and comment when it's clear you haven't kept up with the discussion. f16harm has been stating that Nielsen ratings accurately detail the "quality" of a program's content, when clearly it does not.

you haven't provided a cracker's worth of food in Auschwitz yet to the contrary, other than stating the contrary from personal belief.

At least my OPINION on the subject is backed by numbers for God sake.






still can't believe no one got it yet in post #82....did it need more puns?

[Berowsk]

No one's telling you to shut up, I'm just asking you to use your inside voice.

Not all NBC comedies are quality. I'm not going to re-state my earlier post. Stop being lazy.

What more do you want me to say? Good content isn't driven by ratings. People working on-set don't consider your "hidden psychology" while working hard to make the best television program they know how. Sometimes it works, often times it doesn't. That's life.

The shows that are "stickiest" typically derive from a producer/manager simply looking for something that sells. They're drawn up in executive boardrooms where "stickiness" reigns supreme. All of reality TV begins in a boardroom.

But these are the same execs that lose sleep over ratings. Why would they lose sleep?

However, most written episodic programming begins with a writer's brain and a pen/laptop. Pilots are created and content is king. Whether or not said content is "quality" depends on the talent involved.

Just like record sales shouldn't be viewed as a qualitative indicator, Nielsen ratings shouldn't either. Yes, taste is subjective, but we as humans have built up basic parameters for judging content. Your inability to comprehend that is beyond asinine and your half-wit responses have all but proven it.

Let's give a real-world example for good measure:

My mother doesn't care much about music. She doesn't make any attempts to see what exists in the vast and near-endless pantheon of records that have been and will be created. This is fine.

To that end, my mother only listens to music on the radio in the car because of it's ease of accessibility. It's right in front of her and all she has to do is turn the car on. No extra process of finding the correct station (and she has Sirius/XM to boot!), no research in her off time finding records/discs she will thoroughly enjoy, nothing. It's simple, easy, and stupid.

This isn't to say she's a bad person for not having acquired a taste for music, she just simply doesn't.

And that's where the record labels come in. They pay tons of money to produce artists and albums with the broadest appeal possible in order to make the most money possible. Because the majority of people are like my mother, occupied by other things (like raising my sister and I) in life to afford themselves the luxury of frequently researching music, the majority of people only want art at arms length. Labels pay these huge sums largely for distribution and marketing purposes in order to create a normative of quality that is often lower than expected. After all, it's exponentially more difficult, time-consuming, and financially burdensome to actually create something of artistic value in the face of enormous profits (this is, of course, before piracy).

The same applies to film and television. Last year, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse grossed a little over $300 million at the box office. In comparison, Black Swan grossed $106 million. Does that mean Eclipse has a better constructed story with characters more developed and engaging than Black Swan? Does that mean that the cinematography, direction, and overall aesthetic was received as well as Black Swan? Clearly not.

In much the same way American Idol's 21 million viewers says nothing about it's overall quality as a production over Parks & Recreation and it's measly 5 million viewers.

Yes, the music and Twilight are complete shit in our opinions. The Black Swan is complete shit to anybody that can't comprehend what's going on (i.e. Twilight fans) and the Black Keys (a band I assume you like) are complete shit to pop music fans (i.e. Lady Gaga fans). Once again, it's all subjective from case to case. The only way to measure how much people like your shit in an instant is to receive ratings that depict how many people are listening/watching your piece.

Marketing, while it has to do with ratings somewhat, did not keep "That 80s Show" afloat, and lack of marketing doesn't detract from Seinfield's ratings. Good shows will generally get good ratings, bad shows will generally get bad ratings. Sorry that there weren't many people interested in shows that were cancelled at some point, but that's why shows can be brought back. For example, during Family Guy's first run, everybody thought that show SUCKED. It wasn't until the die hards spread the word and the DVD got the ratings (RATINGS!?) it needed to be put back on the air.

The public opinion is highly reflected in the Nielson ratings. Don't be blind to that because all of your cronies disagree with F16.

[Berowsk]

Who is saying otherwise?

Did you really read the entire thread, and miss the theme of the debate?

I read the thread, but you changed F16 saying that ratings reflect popularity and quality into F16 saying that ratings are the only reflection of popularity and quality (while discrediting that ratings can provide reflection whatsoever).

you haven't provided a cracker's worth of food in Auschwitz yet to the contrary, other than stating the contrary from personal belief.

At least my OPINION on the subject is backed by numbers for God sake.






still can't believe no one got it yet in post #82....did it need more puns?

I must have missed the pun or had no idea what you were talking about in that post. Went back and yep, still missing the joke.