Discussion in 'Battlestar Galactica & Caprica' started by Archangel, Oct 10, 2006.
Damn. Those ratings really took a nosedive didn't they?
Will starbuck be in Caprica?
I told you I could have been off by +/- 0.1 points.
The second episode of the fourth season got a 1.4 coverage rating, not a 1.3. We'll get a confirmation of the third episode's coverage rating no later than next Monday. It's possible that episode also got a 1.4 coverage instead of a 1.3 considering how close the two episodes were in viewers (1.80M vs. 1.74M).
SCI FI also released the Live+7 day numbers for the BSG premiere. It improved to a 1.9 coverage rating (+19%) and 2.65M viewers (+510,000/24%).
The 1.4 is ok but it was doing a lot better last season. At skiffy there was a discussion about "Book Cooking" ? Showing only Live+7 numbers in their press release could be considered creative accounting. Skiffy have invested a lot of money in the series so showing the inflated figures might suit their needs better. As many of you know there's a British entertainment channel Skyone which also broadcasts the new BSG series, too bad it gets beat by re-runs of Bionic Woman.
Appears to have lost 43,000 viewers between episode 401 and 402
With these kind of numbers I don't think Skyone will be giving Caprica their financial support
To be fair, ratings are down on sci-fi in general. I think ECW gets a respectable rating, but thats not even sci-fi and it was getting about 2.5s when it started.
^Unfortunately that has been mentioned and shown in graphs several times, but it doesn't seem to be relevant. All that matters is that BSG is down.
NewBSG and Skiffy may be down but the scifi genre is not, certainly not when Cloverfield, Transformers and Sunshine are making money at the cinema while tv shows like Terminator SCC and Heroes are pulling high viewers. Therefore it is not ludicrous to assume the battlestar writers and the scifi channel have been doing something wrong
No, it's ludicrous to say low ratings=writers doing something wrong.
The writers and Sci-Fi have made a very dark, sometimes depressing show with main characters who can be difficult to like. This is not the same as "bad," but it is something that the average TV viewer is not going to tolerate. Which is their right, but that they tune out is not an indictment of the quality of the writing. Do the declining numbers of people reading short literary fiction mean that all those authors are writing bad stories?
Exactly. This is getting back into the "ratings = quality" bs, when we know they don't.
Who knows? Maybe most "mainstream" science fiction "fans" really DO like nice, safe "feel good escapism" in their science fiction. Stuff that doesn't really stretch their boundaries, paradigms or challenge assumptions. Similar trends can also be spotted in science fiction literature sales, too.
If BSG is wrong, I don't want to be right!
TMoO, I think you missed the point of that statement. Sure, the genre may be doing fine, but if less people are watching SciFi, at least live, is there any particular reason why BSG must be going up to prove it's good when everything else in the channel is down?
Skiffy is showing little enthusiasm for Caprica but it might support Tinman, which pulled 4.2 in the ratings
That's completely nonsensical. Sci-fi has ordered the Caprica pilot, and it's being made. Where's the Tin Man series?
You expected something different?
That's why B-Star-G stands out so much from other sci-fi series. We might not see it's like again for awhile. It IS getting bleaker by the episode, but that doesn't mean that the number of cable viewers in the U.S. of the Sci-Fi Channel is a good measure.
I'll give you one example. I went to Fed Con a couple weeks ago in Bonn, Germany. It is one of the largest Star Trek, and the largest sci-fi convention, in Europe.
They more than DOUBLED their attendance this year. Wasn't about Star Trek; it was all about Battlestar Galactica, and second, SG-Atlantis.
I talked to one of the organizers, and she said that last year that BSG was not really on the radar. But it's reached a critical mass in England, Germany, etc. People walking around in full Viper regalia. Marines; the works. She said that hadn't happened last year. It should be called "Colonial Con" for the time being.
The panels with McDonnell, Bamber, Cains, Forbes, etc., were better attended than the Spiner, Sirtis, Burton ones, generally. At the closing ceremony, McDonnell got several "So say we all" from several thousand fans, and she started crying.
So, the raw numbers from Sci-Fi are just part of the bigger picture. And actually, they don't mean anything anymore. The season will have 20 episodes, no matter what the ratings. They'll make the last episode here in a few weeks.
And exactly, what, would be the continuation of that story? (saw the mini; it's coming out in England here very soon, good stuff). Please tell us, Master, your inside sources. Or are these Oz monkeys flying out of something personal?
The storyline is complex, the villains are inexplicable and the heroes aren't very likeable. That adds up to viewers leaving in droves. Whether it adds up to poor quality is another matter. I'd say that could describe a high-quality show (assuming the villains are inexplicable only because the time to fully and adequately explain them has not yet arrived).
I've been wondering about that, too. I'd expected to hear something about Tin Man by now.
Dark & dismal sci fi isn't necessarily the issue. Lost has been getting about 15M viewers if you count DVR viewing, and it can be pretty dark and dismal. The same week that Cally met her grim fate, Lost did something even more gut-wrenchingly shocking than that (and a whole lot less expected)! It was like they were competing. And Lost is no slouch at brain-twisting plotlines.
The main difference is the large number of protagonists we can root for. Even when Jack gets on our nerves, we can root for Hurley. You can play around with a lot of stuff in a story, but when you deprive people of characters that make them care if they live or die, you lose your audience. I've noticed that the Lost writers are very savvy about their crowd-pleasing elements - they might off a fan-fave every so often just to keep things unpredictable but they know which characters to keep hands off.
BSG is ten times darker than LOST, I feel. LOST can be dark but its got nothing on my ol' pal Galactica when it comes to the doom and gloom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about that. Hell, I think its fantastic.
TMoO, you've posted this once or twice before, and it means absolutely nothing for BSG. BSG is on SciFi, which, since it's on cable, naturally gets less viewers anyways. These other seven shows are on:
Eli Stone: ABC
Ghost Whisperer: CBS
New Amsterdam: FOX
Smallville: The CW
Supernatural: The CW
All of those are readily available to almost everyone with a TV. I fail to see the point of this diagram which keeps popping up. Want to make a point? Show a diagram of all Sci-fi shows on cable, and how they compare to BSG.
Separate names with a comma.