Worst Show Never to be Cancelled

[BrntO4Life]

It seems as though f16harm hates the NBC shows fare more than some of the guys here like them. He's passionate!

Maybe he's the guy watching Mike & Molly, america's #1 new "comedy".

My roommate got roped into attending the live taping of the pilot episode of Mike & Molly. When I asked him how it was, he could only slowly shake his head.

Later, he mentioned it being depressing because, while it was awful, he had a feeling it would be successful.

I imagine f16harm was there, laughing before the "applause" light came on.

Multi-cam sitcoms need to go die in a fire somewhere.

 

[f16harm]

Why are you comparing quality to ratings? There is often no correlation. People like simple entertainment sometimes.

No, but WANTING a group to watch a show and that group watching it aren't the same thing. Arrested Developments target demographic was that, yet no one watched it. It's not necessarily because what that group was watching was better. You keep holding onto ratings as if ratings means it's good television. My counter to that is that most people have poor taste, which is why some of the more critically successful shows either don't last or are supported by the network despite not so great ratings.

You really are quite adept at making some astoundingly bad/pointless arguments sometimes f16harm. What point is it that you're missing? No one is arguing that these shows get good numbers, their arguing that good numbers don't make a good show.

And would you stop with the butthurt crap? No one here is butthurt over anything, except for maybe you. You're WAY too excited about ratings numbers for a dude that has nothing to do with the television industry.

Quite frankly, I often worry when my taste in tv/movies/music delves into "the norm".

I think both of you guys are very naive, that's all I can say. Because obviously you guys have your own thoughts on the subject.

And SethMode, I understand you are going to go and waste a lot of money at UPenn to administer my doc's vaccinations each year, but please stop with the pompous inferences about knowing my personal life outside of MM or VSN or whatever the fuck we will call this community next month.

P.S. Brnt04Life, Office had 7.87 million viewers. It's demo was 4.0

 

[BrntO4Life]

your shit is not found to be funny by the young population in this country you seek, because even if total viewers were low, that demo number would be 3.0, 4.0, or 5.0 if young people found the show worth a dick

Office had 7.87 million viewers. It's demo was 4.0

Loser4Life

 

[Senser81]

I think both of you guys are very naive, that's all I can say. Because obviously you guys have your own thoughts on the subject.

And SethMode, I understand you are going to go and waste a lot of money at UPenn to administer my doc's vaccinations each year, but please stop with the pompous inferences about knowing my personal life outside of MM or VSN or whatever the fuck we will call this community next month.

P.S. Loser4Life, Office had 7.87 million viewers. It's demo was 4.0

This post was better than Mike & Molly. I love the "I think you guys are naive...that's all I can say............but, on a side note, Sethmode you suck at life and Brnt you are a loser. Oh, VSN sucks dick."

 

[f16harm]

This post was better than Mike & Molly. I love the "I think you guys are naive...that's all I can say............but, on a side note, Sethmode you suck at life and Brnt you are a loser. Oh, VSN sucks dick."

I guess it's better than making up stories on VSN about having a wife. Isn't it time for Johnny's drum lesson, Mark?

 

[SethMode]

And SethMode, I understand you are going to go and waste a lot of money at UPenn to administer my doc's vaccinations each year, but please stop with the pompous inferences about knowing my personal life outside of MM or VSN or whatever the fuck we will call this community next month.

Right...butthurt, that's us, not you. More typical F16harm rage.

I thought you had your engineering degree? I'm sorry if that lead me to assume you didn't work for Nielson. And I hate vague as fuck posts like that regardless. You're here raging about demographics and the like, and all I said was that you were too excited about that shit for a dude not in the industry. ARE you in the industry now? If you are, fine, then you're a justifiable amount of excited and I apologize for the assumption. Either way, I don't see the reason why you would need to go all rage-crazy. I didn't go out of my way to try and insult you (unlike you did for me).

And it's not wasting money at UPenn if you have a scholarship. :thumbsup:

 

[Senser81]

I guess it's better than making up stories on VSN about having a wife. Isn't it time for Johnny's drum lesson, Mark?

STFU...my fake wife stories draw 7.87 million viewers. It's demo was 4.0.

 

[BrntO4Life]

Senser's stories, like Parker Brothers board games, are ages 3-100.

 

[Rivers17ncsu]

It seems as though f16harm hates the NBC shows fare more than some of the guys here like them. He's passionate!

Maybe he's the guy watching Mike & Molly, america's #1 new "comedy".

That would be my parents, they also love Two & A Half Men


M&M doesn't bother me too much though


and American Idol is dope

 

[f16harm]

Right...butthurt, that's us, not you. More typical F16harm rage.

I thought you had your engineering degree? I'm sorry if that lead me to assume you didn't work for Nielson. And I hate vague as fuck posts like that regardless. You're here raging about demographics and the like, and all I said was that you were too excited about that shit for a dude not in the industry. ARE you in the industry now? If you are, fine, then you're a justifiable amount of excited and I apologize for the assumption. Either way, I don't see the reason why you would need to go all rage-crazy. I didn't go out of my way to try and insult you (unlike you did for me).

And it's not wasting money at UPenn if you have a scholarship. :thumbsup:

1. I'm not raging. It's that most people in this community are fucking stupid when debates turn real, and then they rely on their e-buddies to back them through the whole thing. Banter about sports or stupid shit in the world, fine, but when shit gets real around here all the e-clique fags whip out the KY and start stroking one another so they can look all cool and smart. You and Warner I generally don't see that way, thus why I left it at the "naive" comment. But, you were coming across as a bit of a prick..

2. Just because I may have given a general idea of what I do for a living in the past, doesn't mean I don't have family/friends/money invested into the entertainment arena. And I sure as hell wouldn't divulge any specifics of that shit here!

P.S. To show I'm not an "NBC Hater": Mike and Molly is no where near the hit with people's word of mouth, or numerical ratings, as CBS says it is. it will be back next year, but it's numbers are bloated due to 2 1/2 Men. This show can't stand on its own and will sink if not constantly propped up. I mean seriously, who wants to watch a male and female Chubby Giango every week for 30 minutes (lets see if he searches his name on the forum and finds this)

 

[BrntO4Life]

1. I'm not raging. It's that most people in this community are fucking stupid when debates turn real, and then they rely on their e-buddies to back them through the whole thing. Banter about sports or stupid shit in the world, fine, but when shit gets real around here all the e-clique fags whip out the KY and start stroking one another so they can look all cool and smart. You and Warner I generally don't see that way, thus why I left it at the "naive" comment. But, you were coming across as a bit of a prick...

No, it's that we are making a very different argument than you and your sandy vagina causes you to flip out and make personal attacks.

You say ratings are DIRECTLY RELATED to program quality. I (and others) would argue that this could not be further from the truth. If anything, ratings are DIRECTLY related to marketing and "stickiness" (to quote Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point).

"Stickiness" doesn't refer to quality at all, but rather the ability of something to catch on to a near-epidemic degree. Clearly, shows like American Idol and Bones have this.

2. Just because I may have given a general idea of what I do for a living in the past, doesn't mean I don't have family/friends/money invested into the entertainment arena. And I sure as hell wouldn't divulge any specifics of that shit here!

So you paid for some Time Warner stock, eh? What's that? Your great aunt's husband is a manager at a third-rate production company that only does fast-food commercials?

I guess the rest of us should stop trying, then.

 

[Spidey]

I can see why f16 is using ratings as a measurement for quality. Sadly its the only real measurement we have. How else are we going to measure quality outside of just opinoin?

That said I disagree entirely with using ratings to show quality. I submit to you the Nickelback defense. Insanely popular for god knows why. Horrible horrible music. The average joe will watch/listen to whatever is put in front of them despite quality.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Dude, we are bantering about shitty shows. You come flying in with ratings as if it holds any signifigance in this conversation.

As some of the guys around here know, I study tv ratings and follow the industry pretty closely, because its a hobby of mine. But nobody gives a fuck in the context of this topic. Quality and ratings hold almost no bearing on one another, for the most part. Your insinuations otherwise are what's naive.

 

[BrntO4Life]

I can see why f16 is using ratings as a measurement for quality. Sadly its the only real measurement we have. How else are we going to measure quality outside of just opinoin?

There is no best determinant for quality, as taste varies, but what about sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes?

Aggregating critical reviews from across the web and generating a mean is the best we can do, and it's USUALLY a solid barometer for good content.

It certainly tells us more than ratings ever would.

 

[Spidey]

There is no best determinant for quality, as taste varies, but what about sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes?

Aggregating critical reviews from across the web and generating a mean is the best we can do, and it's USUALLY a solid barometer for good content.

It certainly tells us more than ratings ever would.

Agreed 100%.

 

[f16harm]

No, it's that we are making a very different argument than you and your sandy vagina causes you to flip out and make personal attacks.

You say ratings are DIRECTLY RELATED to program quality. I (and others) would argue that this could not be further from the truth. If anything, ratings are DIRECTLY related to marketing and "stickiness" (to quote Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point).

"Stickiness" doesn't refer to quality at all, but rather the ability of something to catch on to a near-epidemic degree. Clearly, shows like American Idol and Bones have this.



So you paid for some Time Warner stock, eh? What's that? Your great aunt's husband is a manager at a third-rate production company that only does fast-food commercials?

I guess the rest of us should stop trying, then.

^^ and that's what I am talking about. Smart as replies are OK and fine when done in jest and poking fun and such in the NFL area, etc. Doing them like this is just being a fucking asshole. Why did you edit the post quickly to remove the part saying "I am working my way into the industry, I'm sure I know infinitely more than you."?

If I stated that all ratings are directly correlated to quality, then I misspoke, but to say that ratings ARE NOT correlated to a show's quality is simply hogwash. Now, to thoroughly examine that theory we'd have to get into a deep, serious conversation on the psychology of viewers and the fact that if a show is pulling consistently high numbers, even if it isn't produced in the likes of a Lord of the Rings, Silence of the Lambs, etc type quality...they MUST be finding SOME kind of quality in that. it may not be the "quality" many of us would be thinking of on the surface, but there is definitely a high "quality" to all of those viewers since it can pull solid numbers regularly. Will some terrible shows slip through with good ratings? Sure. But to think that every single one, or even a majority will, is simply naive. I have an extensive background in psychology, and not the Freud and Jung bullshit, trust me, it's too deep a fucking debate to have in this thread. Furthermore, I don't really give a shit about posturing on why or how a large group of people find quality in X show. I will stand by this though, if a show pulls large numbers, there has to be something in a show of "quality" to viewers. You may not see it, but obviously an overwhelming majority does or else they wouldn't be tuning in. People tuning in for "mindless drivel" is not that important to people. This can be seen in the disappearance of Sat and soon to be Friday programming. People are now doing other things than watching TV.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

^^ and that's what I am talking about. Smart as replies are OK and fine when done in jest and poking fun and such in the NFL area, etc. Doing them like this is just being a fucking asshole. Why did you edit the post quickly to remove the part saying "I am working my way into the industry, I'm sure I know infinitely more than you."?

If I stated that all ratings are directly correlated to quality, then I misspoke, but to say that ratings ARE NOT correlated to a show's quality is simply hogwash. Now, to thoroughly examine that theory we'd have to get into a deep, serious conversation on the psychology of viewers and the fact that if a show is pulling consistently high numbers, even if it isn't produced in the likes of a Lord of the Rings, Silence of the Lambs, etc type quality...they MUST be finding SOME kind of quality in that. it may not be the "quality" many of us would be thinking of on the surface, but there is definitely a high "quality" to all of those viewers. I have an extensive background in psychology, and not the Freud and Jung bullshit, trust me, it's too deep a fucking debate to have in this thread.

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.

 

[f16harm]

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.

So basically, you don't feel there is any reason why people tune into these shows? They just turn it on because they can't control their hand in the remote? They have absolutely no connection to them, similarities to their life, a feeling of relief because others have their problems?

Please stop acting like an over the top drama queen, this isn't a Sam Bradford post. If you TRULY think that writers, producers, and developers don't interject the psychological aspect of a show into their development....you sir are a fucking dipshit. That's exactly what a show's storyline is about, emitting a response from the viewer whether it be physically or emotionally.

You do know that psychology means "the study of human behavior" right? As in all things mentally and physically. It's not "the study of crazy shit in people's mind".

 

[Houston]

Going by F16's theory I can assume that Lady Gaga is the best artist in the music industry?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

So basically, you don't feel there is any reason why people tune into these shows? They just turn it on? They have absolutely no connection to them, similarities to their life, a feeling of relief because others have their problems?

Please stop acting like an over the top drama queen, this isn't a Sam Bradford post.

No, Plato, the people who watch that shit just want to laugh at the same simple, boring, recycled "OMG, Charlie Sheen is oversexed! Ha!" Jokes over and over, because they seek simple, mindless entertainment. There is no hidden quality. It is what it is-junk.

Nobody is arguing that mindless junk can't pull numbers. I think that's fairly obvious. Nobody is playing drama queen. Well, except you actually.