RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,595
Posts: 5,404,422
Members: 24,869
Currently online: 507
Newest member: michiko

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Battlestar Galactica & Caprica

Battlestar Galactica & Caprica This forum was created by man. It rebelled. It evolved. And it has a plan.

 
 
Thread Tools
Old October 10 2006, 06:37 PM   #61
Archangel
Guest
 
Re: Ratings are in !

BSG is also more expensive than SG1. FX and paying EJO and MM. Those mean it has to do better than it.
 
Old October 10 2006, 06:40 PM   #62
firehawk12
Fleet Admiral
 
firehawk12's Avatar
 
Location: EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)
Re: Ratings are in !

But, I guess the flip side is that BSG is a property that's "in the family", where as Sony/MGM/Fox/My mom owns SG-1.

Arg... TV speculation is annoying. They announced the cancellation and renewal of SG-1/Atlantis respectively about 5 weeks in, so maybe that's when they talk about the future of BSG.
__________________
The best reason to watch Curling:
Johnson Sisters!

"How do you trust a nation that's invented Karate? They're standing there in their pajamas... then they kick you in the balls!"
firehawk12 is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 06:44 PM   #63
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Ratings are in !

Archangel said:
BSG is also more expensive than SG1. FX and paying EJO and MM. Those mean it has to do better than it.
Not necessarily. Universal may be footing a bigger part of the bill than MGM is for the Stargates, planning on recouping the costs via iTunes/DVD.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 06:49 PM   #64
Mr Awe
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Ratings are in !

flamingliberal said:
It doesn't matter. The show is a money-maker for Sci-Fi, and that is what determines whether a show stays on the air; ratings are incidental to that because the determine the ad prices. The difference in what they charge for say a Mac commercial at 2.1 is probably no different than what they charge at 1.8. It also has good demos, brings some long-desired acclaim to a channel with very little going for it and sells well on DVD, iTunes and will do well in syndication.
No, there is a problem. 1.8 may be high enough to keep it on the air. The problem is if it drops more. There's not much safety room below 1.8! What if 1.8 is higher than the average for this season simply because it was the premiere.

Now, I agree that we'll have to wait and see. 1.8 should be fine to keep it around. But, will the ratings stay around 1.8? That's uncertain right now.

Mr Awe
Mr Awe is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 06:55 PM   #65
Mr Awe
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Ratings are in !

flamingliberal said:
Somehow this does not stike me as, "Well shit, let's just cancel the fucker!" sort of talk. Calm down. Sci-fi is a niche channel and is really only worried about ratings in its target demos. BSG is doing great in those, and that's all that matters.
Before you start feeling too secure you better look into SG-1's cancellation. It was getting roughly the same ratings I believe.

You're oversimplying things as a sort of security blanket. I'm not saying that it will get cancelled but it's not as cut and dry as you make it out either.

Mr Awe
Mr Awe is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 07:30 PM   #66
nevermore
Admiral
 
nevermore's Avatar
 
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Re: Ratings are in !

^It's not worth arguing about. Just to reiterate the parts of my post you didn't quote, ratings have a more complex relationship to the shows and the all-mighty advertizing dollar that people seem to grasp. BSG does well in the demos that sci-fi and their advertizers care about. It always has. Beyond that, the money for DVD sales, downloads etc. goes into the equasion as does the acclaim and attention (read free advertising) that the show brings to the network. Stargate, Farscape etc. never brought those sorts of freebies to the network. They just didn't have the same added value that BSG has. To think that Sci-Fi's decisions regarding BSG are tied to a couple tenths of a ratings point is naive.

I understand that people feel they have been burned with those other shows, but I've agreed with the cancellations that are oft cited to villify Skiffy, so I suppose I'm coming at it from a different perspective. And, no, I'm not clutching at my security blanket, mostly because I'm not a child and just don't care enough to need one.
__________________
What is a country without the shackles of it's past?
nevermore is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 07:38 PM   #67
JCBos
Commander
 
Location: Boston, MA USA
Re: Ratings are in !

Before you start feeling too secure you better look into SG-1's cancellation. It was getting roughly the same ratings I believe.
Slightly lower, but when comparing them, one has to bear in mind that SG-1 has been on for ten years and isn't produced by NBC/Universal. If ratings were the be-all-and-end-all of cancellation, then Atlantis would have been cancelled right along with it.

JCBos is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 08:29 PM   #68
sidious618
Admiral
 
sidious618's Avatar
 
Location: New York, US
Send a message via AIM to sidious618
Re: Ratings are in !

Stargate was not cancelled onyl because of its ratings, as a matter of fact that only had a small part in it.

I'm quite happy to see BSG's numbers and the press release makes me look forward to the future.
__________________
We've met before, haven't we?
sidious618 is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 08:33 PM   #69
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: Ratings are in !

You know - with all these explinations, excuces, etc. it made me have a flashback to the Enterprise forum two years back.

"The premire date and time wasn't really well advertised..." - check

"But the Nielsons don't account for TiVO's and DVR/VCRs" - check

"It was going up against [insert sporting event or higher rated TV show name here]." - check

"I had a BUNCH of people over and we all watched it at the same time..." - Check

"It was shown more than once, I'm sure many people knew this and caught a later broadcast of it..." - check



But, in the end, since BSG isn't doing any better or worse than anything else on Sci-Fi (although if viewership for the later episodes drops below 2 million viewers all bets are probably off); so it may still get a season 4; although I have a feeling RDM won't get the proposed Caprica spinoff series approved. But between the average ratings and 'critical acclaim' nuBSG still gets, it's probably safe unless the numbers start to slide even further.

I actually thought the second hour was better than the first (sorry, but nowwe have a second "Half Cylon/Half Human" baby when they STILL haven't done a single thing with the huge buildup on Galactica Boomer's/Helo's half-breed) /yawn. But again, I liked the direction all this was coming to in the second hour; I just hope they don't drag this occupation storyline on for too long since to me, it seems like a reboot of sorts since they were ALREADY fleeing one homeworld (and the Cylons still have a Human population there, as this entire story arc was started by an attempt to extract Kira's then boyfriend from Caprica directly) - so for me, the whole "this time we just want to control and not outright exterminate Hummanity..." Cylon experiment seems redundent. Still I hope we see them move on and get back into space again, looking for Earth which Adama again agrees should have some priority.

But, time will tell.
Noname Given is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 08:36 PM   #70
Mr Awe
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Ratings are in !

flamingliberal said:
^It's not worth arguing about. Just to reiterate the parts of my post you didn't quote, ratings have a more complex relationship to the shows and the all-mighty advertizing dollar that people seem to grasp. BSG does well in the demos that sci-fi and their advertizers care about. It always has. Beyond that, the money for DVD sales, downloads etc. goes into the equasion as does the acclaim and attention (read free advertising) that the show brings to the network. Stargate, Farscape etc. never brought those sorts of freebies to the network. They just didn't have the same added value that BSG has. To think that Sci-Fi's decisions regarding BSG are tied to a couple tenths of a ratings point is naive.

As far as I'm concerned we're not arguing but discussing it. I agree there are more factors than just ratings when it comes to deciding which shows get the boot. But ratings is a key one. Further, I don't think BSG provides much more of the extras/freebies that you allude to compared to say Stargate SG-1. Care to expand?

Still, given what happened to SG-1 combined with the fact that BSG is rated only slightly higher, you can't help but wonder.

Mr Awe
Mr Awe is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 08:48 PM   #71
benny
Vice Admiral
 
benny's Avatar
 
Location: benny
Re: Ratings are in !

Mr Awe said:
Further, I don't think BSG provides much more of the extras/freebies that you allude to compared to say Stargate SG-1. Care to expand?
I am loathe to get involved in this, but...

BSG is talked about in every single entertainment publication out there. It was the cover story in Entertainment Weekly a couple weeks back. Seeing the picture of Baltar, Roslin and Six on the rack (no pun intended) amounted to free advertising. Every legit website out there was talking it up. Free advertising. BSG got promo time on NBC. SG-1 did not. BSG is seen in most circles as being as good as, if not better than, some of the best drama nominees at the Emmy's. SG-1 isn't even close to the conversation. The acting is heralded as award worthy. When did that ever happen to SG-1?

Everyone talking about it is free advertising. It provides a signature show for the network, which for years was the home of old reruns. It is the Sci Fi Channel more than Stargate and Farscape ever could be.
benny is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 09:27 PM   #72
Archangel
Guest
 
Re: Ratings are in !

Noname Given said:
You know - with all these explinations, excuces, etc. it made me have a flashback to the Enterprise forum two years back.

"The premire date and time wasn't really well advertised..." - check

"But the Nielsons don't account for TiVO's and DVR/VCRs" - check

"It was going up against [insert sporting event or higher rated TV show name here]." - check

"I had a BUNCH of people over and we all watched it at the same time..." - Check

"It was shown more than once, I'm sure many people knew this and caught a later broadcast of it..." - check



But, in the end, since BSG isn't doing any better or worse than anything else on Sci-Fi (although if viewership for the later episodes drops below 2 million viewers all bets are probably off); so it may still get a season 4; although I have a feeling RDM won't get the proposed Caprica spinoff series approved. But between the average ratings and 'critical acclaim' nuBSG still gets, it's probably safe unless the numbers start to slide even further.

I actually thought the second hour was better than the first (sorry, but nowwe have a second "Half Cylon/Half Human" baby when they STILL haven't doen a singlke thing with the huge buildup on Galactica Boomer's/Helo's half-breed) /yawn. But again, I liked the direction all this was coming to in the second hour; I just hope they don't drag this occupation storyline on for too long since to me, it seems like a reboot of sorts since they were ALREADY fleeing one homeworld (and the Cylons still have a Human population there, as this entire story arc was started by an attempt to extract Kira's then boyfriend from Caprica directly - so for me, the whole "this time we just want to control and not outright exterminate Hummanity..." Cylon experiment seems redundent. Still I hope we see them move on and get back into space again, looking for Earth which Adama again agrees should have some priority.

But, time will tell.
LOL...I was being nice and not saying it...all the spinning here and on other boards is making me seriously dizzy.

Perhaps we should hook generators up to them to make power
 
Old October 10 2006, 09:37 PM   #73
Stormrage
Rear Admiral
 
Location: London
Re: Ratings are in !

LOL. I always thought that BSG went downhill after the Valley of Darkness. I guess people shared my opinon an episode to early. Since i thought VoD was good.

You hear that Ron? Your show is sinking. A lot faster then SG-1. I just wonder how long the show can sink. Since Sci Fi (or Universal) gets the DVD and syndication sales from it. Which means they earn more money then they would from a succesful SG-1.

I would probably guess that it would get cancelled if it got an average of 1.6.

By the way how much does it cost? I remember reading last year that each episode costs $750k to make. Compared to SG-1s $1.4 M thats cheap.

Looking at the episde run time of 44 mins that would leave them with 16 minutes of adverts. They could easily make up the cost of making and airing the show and some profit.
Stormrage is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 09:49 PM   #74
Devnull
Captain
 
Location: Delphi, Caprica
Re: Ratings are in !

I beleive at the convention, ron said that each episode costs more than 1 million, but less than 3. So I would guess he meant around 2 million an episode.
Devnull is offline  
Old October 10 2006, 09:50 PM   #75
DWF
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: Ratings are in !

Stormrage said:
LOL. I always thought that BSG went downhill after the Valley of Darkness. I guess people shared my opinon an episode to early. Since i thought VoD was good.

You hear that Ron? Your show is sinking. A lot faster then SG-1. I just wonder how long the show can sink. Since Sci Fi (or Universal) gets the DVD and syndication sales from it. Which means they earn more money then they would from a succesful SG-1.

I would probably guess that it would get cancelled if it got an average of 1.6.

By the way how much does it cost? I remember reading last year that each episode costs $750k to make. Compared to SG-1s $1.4 M thats cheap.

Looking at the episde run time of 44 mins that would leave them with 16 minutes of adverts. They could easily make up the cost of making and airing the show and some profit.
I know that Stargate SG1 costs over 2 million per ep. and I'm certain that Battlestar Galactica's budget is about the same.
__________________
The greatest science fiction series of all time is
Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one
or all in a bunch to back it up!"
--- Harlan Ellison, from his introduction
to the PINNACLE series of Doctor Who books
DWF is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Tags
ratings

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.