Jump to content

This shows decline.


Wulf3
 Share

Recommended Posts

the ratings "slipping"? this season has had the highest ratings in the history of the show. Where do you get the "ratings slipping" thing?

This.

Also, it's not one of the top-rated shows now, it's the top-rated show in most weeks (Modern Family beat it very narrowly, 5.54 vs 5.53, as the top scripted show for the full season).

Not trying to prove anything by that, just stating a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the studio audience were being pressured into going "awwwwwwww"? I have my doubts about that.

As for the ratings slipping "a little", after 5 seasons, surprise, surprise. How does it stack up against other programs? Is it making money? It is still one of the top rated shows. It is making money hand over fist. The show is still going great. Everyone can argue "what if". What if they hadn't brought in any other females and what if Penny and Leonard had never hooked up and Leonard still gave her those goofy love struck looks every time he saw and and especially while she was with other women. IMO the ratings would be in the tank by now had they done so. I think that the show is doing great and is on the right track.

I didn't mean the audience was pressured into going 'aww' but if you read taping reports it shows that many times if the audience doesn't react the way the writers expected they will re-write a scene or re-do a scene so they get the right reaction.

I'm quite aware that the show is the highest rated show of its genre still. It's pretty much in a league of its own but being so, this season, I've read many ratings reviews of the show saying things like 'ratings were down this week from last week', 'lowest rating since November', stuff like that. Even with that I know that still means they get about 13 million viewers instead of 15 or 16 million. But look at Two and a Half Men... it was one of the highest rated shows for years but every year it went on more and more people who had watched the show and other people who heard about it would say it isn't as good anymore but it still got good ratings. It wasn't until Charlie left that there was a bit more noticeable drop.

To me Big Bang Theory is like WWE in that people who got into it in the first place just like it for some reason and even if it dissapoints them from time to time they'll still keep it on their radar. Maybe not watch it everytime all the time but they won't completely give up on it unless it is truly done.

I'm starting to be that way with Big Bang Theory. I'm not as enthusiastic about it as I used to be but as much as I may seem to diss it I still want to enjoy it and want to like what's happening but I'm just stating that I've been more dissapointed with episodes lately than before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean the audience was pressured into going 'aww' but if you read taping reports it shows that many times if the audience doesn't react the way the writers expected they will re-write a scene or re-do a scene so they get the right reaction.

They do. I think that's quite a smart way of improving the quality of the writing - going by live feedback. In this case, obviously they managed to do it (or redo it) in a way that elicited the perfect response, both from the audience and from most of the viewers.

I'm quite aware that the show is the highest rated show of its genre still. It's pretty much in a league of its own but being so, this season, I've read many ratings reviews of the show saying things like 'ratings were down this week from last week', 'lowest rating since November', stuff like that. Even with that I know that still means they get about 13 million viewers instead of 15 or 16 million.

What you probably saw were reports recording the normal drop in ratings that happens between February to April as spring/summer sets in. That happens in every season. So the highest ratings are usually in January/February, with a steady decline afterwards (and usually a small peak near the finale).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't please everyone and in show biz it's really about pleasing as many people as you can, the ratings reflect that the Big bang theory is doing that. I have a feeling that if the ratings slipped enough, they'd try something else. Some say don't hook up Leonard and Penny, well people would get bored by not going there... Just like how Howard as a creepy pervert didn't have legs for the whole series. Shows have to change otherwise they're no longer are appealing to some viewers. There are exceptions but you can't prove that the ratings would be where they are if they didn't evolve the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are exceptions but you can't prove that the ratings would be where they are if they didn't evolve the show.

This right here is one of the most scientific statements I've ever read here. None of the 'show is becoming horrible and heading towards its downfall' or 'show is wonderful and it would have tanked if they hadn't evolved'.. just pure logic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This right here is one of the most scientific statements I've ever read here. None of the 'show is becoming horrible and heading towards its downfall' or 'show is wonderful and it would have tanked if they hadn't evolved'.. just pure logic. :)

Thanks lol.. Honestly, it's very hard for any show to get more popular while still pleasing the same amount of people without someone getting pissed off by the direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This right here is one of the most scientific statements I've ever read here. None of the 'show is becoming horrible and heading towards its downfall' or 'show is wonderful and it would have tanked if they hadn't evolved'.. just pure logic. :)

Thanks lol.. Honestly, it's very hard for any show to get more popular while still pleasing the same amount of people without someone getting pissed off by the direction.

Actually, I do think that TBBT would not have become the phenomenon it is today (in terms of popularity, success and accolades) if they hadn't managed to keep it fresh by adding interesting new characters and storylines. (Even today, we can see that the episodes which look like rehashes of plots used in earlier seasons don't work so well).

But I can't prove that either. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean the audience was pressured into going 'aww' but if you read taping reports it shows that many times if the audience doesn't react the way the writers expected they will re-write a scene or re-do a scene so they get the right reaction.

They do. I think that's quite a smart way of improving the quality of the writing - going by live feedback. In this case, obviously they managed to do it (or redo it) in a way that elicited the perfect response, both from the audience and from most of the viewers.

I'm quite aware that the show is the highest rated show of its genre still. It's pretty much in a league of its own but being so, this season, I've read many ratings reviews of the show saying things like 'ratings were down this week from last week', 'lowest rating since November', stuff like that. Even with that I know that still means they get about 13 million viewers instead of 15 or 16 million.

What you probably saw were reports recording the normal drop in ratings that happens between February to April as spring/summer sets in. That happens in every season. So the highest ratings are usually in January/February, with a steady decline afterwards (and usually a small peak near the finale).

Bingo!!!!

Raw rating numbers for most scripted shows go down after the big "sweeps month" of February, that's why ratings positions are determined by percentage of viewers in the time period, the "Share". TBBT ended the year as the number one comedy for the week of May 6 to May 12 because it had the biggest Share. The season 4 final episode drew 11.30 million. Season 5's finale posted 13.72.

TBBT had its highest raw totals of viewers during January and February with five episodes drawing more than 16 million viewers with "The Friendship Contraction" on Feb 2nd the peak at 16.54 million. It's an odd coincidence but three Shamy heavy eps had 16+.

Year to Year the Average viewership for Seasons 4 and 5 went like this:

Sept 23, 2010 to May 19, 2011 ------ 13.14 million

Sept 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012 ------ 15.94 million

That's a net gain of a whooping 2.8 million viewers. Slipping it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's many shows that decline just because the writing may not be up to par. Whether bbt is falling in that state or not doesn't necessarily mean the characters evolving are the cause of that. It's easier to assume that's the case because it's happening around the time the characters are going through all this growth. So we can't actually truly determine this is the reason, unless tbbt goes back to the way it used to be.

And I think some have you guys have been saying how there's too many relationship stories. Howard and Bernadette's marriage is the most dominate storyline this season, and then LP and SA were less important but still it was a relationship. And Raj, who was never officially with anybody was able to have two of that, so maybe it is too many pact into one season. If anything, may be if it's spread out throughout the series it'd be better. Cause to me if I had an issue with that, that'd be a better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean the audience was pressured into going 'aww' but if you read taping reports it shows that many times if the audience doesn't react the way the writers expected they will re-write a scene or re-do a scene so they get the right reaction.

They do. I think that's quite a smart way of improving the quality of the writing - going by live feedback. In this case, obviously they managed to do it (or redo it) in a way that elicited the perfect response, both from the audience and from most of the viewers.

I'm quite aware that the show is the highest rated show of its genre still. It's pretty much in a league of its own but being so, this season, I've read many ratings reviews of the show saying things like 'ratings were down this week from last week', 'lowest rating since November', stuff like that. Even with that I know that still means they get about 13 million viewers instead of 15 or 16 million.

What you probably saw were reports recording the normal drop in ratings that happens between February to April as spring/summer sets in. That happens in every season. So the highest ratings are usually in January/February, with a steady decline afterwards (and usually a small peak near the finale).

Bingo!!!!

Raw rating numbers for most scripted shows go down after the big "sweeps month" of February, that's why ratings positions are determined by percentage of viewers in the time period, the "Share". TBBT ended the year as the number one comedy for the week of May 6 to May 12 because it had the biggest Share. The season 4 final episode drew 11.30 million. Season 5's finale posted 13.72.

TBBT had its highest raw totals of viewers during January and February with five episodes drawing more than 16 million viewers with "The Friendship Contraction" on Feb 2nd the peak at 16.54 million. It's an odd coincidence but three Shamy heavy eps had 16+.

Year to Year the Average viewership for Seasons 4 and 5 went like this:

Sept 23, 2010 to May 19, 2011 ------ 13.14 million

Sept 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012 ------ 15.94 million

That's a net gain of a whooping 2.8 million viewers. Slipping it is not.

I used to pay close attention to the ratings until I found out that Nielsen changed their ratings formula over last summer. They don't say how, but they do say they did. This makes a season 4 to season 5 comparison impossible.

There has been a slight downward trend over the past 7 shows though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo!!!!

Raw rating numbers for most scripted shows go down after the big "sweeps month" of February, that's why ratings positions are determined by percentage of viewers in the time period, the "Share". TBBT ended the year as the number one comedy for the week of May 6 to May 12 because it had the biggest Share. The season 4 final episode drew 11.30 million. Season 5's finale posted 13.72.

TBBT had its highest raw totals of viewers during January and February with five episodes drawing more than 16 million viewers with "The Friendship Contraction" on Feb 2nd the peak at 16.54 million. It's an odd coincidence but three Shamy heavy eps had 16+.

Year to Year the Average viewership for Seasons 4 and 5 went like this:

Sept 23, 2010 to May 19, 2011 ------ 13.14 million

Sept 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012 ------ 15.94 million

That's a net gain of a whooping 2.8 million viewers. Slipping it is not.

I used to pay close attention to the ratings until I found out that Nielsen changed their ratings formula over last summer. They don't say how, but they do say they did. This makes a season 4 to season 5 comparison impossible.

There has been a slight downward trend over the past 7 shows though.

OK. So a change in Nielsen's collection procedure could explain the addition of nearly three million new viewers this year? Wow, that's the greatest polling error since "Dewey beat Truman".

I'm assuming you read the part about raw viewing numbers going down after Sweeps month for scripted shows? For TBBT that meant the six shows starting March 8th. Since all other comedies went down as well, Big Bang was number one for it's finale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo!!!!

Raw rating numbers for most scripted shows go down after the big "sweeps month" of February, that's why ratings positions are determined by percentage of viewers in the time period, the "Share". TBBT ended the year as the number one comedy for the week of May 6 to May 12 because it had the biggest Share. The season 4 final episode drew 11.30 million. Season 5's finale posted 13.72.

TBBT had its highest raw totals of viewers during January and February with five episodes drawing more than 16 million viewers with "The Friendship Contraction" on Feb 2nd the peak at 16.54 million. It's an odd coincidence but three Shamy heavy eps had 16+.

Year to Year the Average viewership for Seasons 4 and 5 went like this:

Sept 23, 2010 to May 19, 2011 ------ 13.14 million

Sept 22, 2011 to May 10, 2012 ------ 15.94 million

That's a net gain of a whooping 2.8 million viewers. Slipping it is not.

I used to pay close attention to the ratings until I found out that Nielsen changed their ratings formula over last summer. They don't say how, but they do say they did. This makes a season 4 to season 5 comparison impossible.

There has been a slight downward trend over the past 7 shows though.

OK. So a change in Nielsen's collection procedure could explain the addition of nearly three million new viewers this year? Wow, that's the greatest polling error since "Dewey beat Truman".

I'm assuming you read the part about raw viewing numbers going down after Sweeps month for scripted shows? For TBBT that meant the six shows starting March 8th. Since all other comedies went down as well, Big Bang was number one for it's finale.

It's not an error. It's a different formula. The numbers changed for all shows.

I'm not saying it’s better or worse, just that it’s different so you can't compare this year to last.

This is just basic math. The scales are different.

The thing that is true is that TBBT has held the top spot for a while. I don't think that the total viewership has gone down. Quite the opposite. The fact that this has had, for me, an adverse effect on the show is beside the point. What is true is that they have gained more viewers than they have lost over the past several years so it is a big win for the owners of the show as well as the viewers who are enjoying it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are exceptions but you can't prove that the ratings would be where they are if they didn't evolve the show.

This right here is one of the most scientific statements I've ever read here. None of the 'show is becoming horrible and heading towards its downfall' or 'show is wonderful and it would have tanked if they hadn't evolved'.. just pure logic. :)

No it isn't. Sorry, but that logic is fallacious. It's arguing in a vacuum. It's like saying you can't prove trees would be bigger if leaves weren't green. You can't have the show go back in time and not evolve so you can't test his hypothesis that it would or would not have better ratings as a result. That aside, the ratings are, in my opinion, a direct result of this so called evolution. They have found a bigger audience with the, "Friends Lite," formula and that is where their business is going to be from now on. They would have to be crazy to mess with their success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. Sorry, but that logic is fallacious. It's arguing in a vacuum. It's like saying you can't prove trees would be bigger if leaves weren't green. You can't have the show go back in time and not evolve so you can't test his hypothesis that it would or would not have better ratings as a result. That aside, the ratings are, in my opinion, a direct result of this so called evolution. They have found a bigger audience with the, "Friends Lite," formula and that is where their business is going to be from now on. They would have to be crazy to mess with their success.

All true but that's the point. You can't go back so people can complain and still watch or complain and not watch. If people don't like it the way it is you can't expect to go back to an old formula that had less success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are exceptions but you can't prove that the ratings would be where they are if they didn't evolve the show.

This right here is one of the most scientific statements I've ever read here. None of the 'show is becoming horrible and heading towards its downfall' or 'show is wonderful and it would have tanked if they hadn't evolved'.. just pure logic. :)

No it isn't. Sorry, but that logic is fallacious. It's arguing in a vacuum. It's like saying you can't prove trees would be bigger if leaves weren't green. You can't have the show go back in time and not evolve so you can't test his hypothesis that it would or would not have better ratings as a result.

The last sentence you wrote IS exactly what the original post wrote, in fact. That it can't be proved whether the ratings would have been as good (or not) if the show hadn't evolved, because it's impossible now to go back and not evolve it. It's a scientific statement because it's neutral.

Speaking of vacuum - this entire discussion is hypothetical and in a vacuum. The writers are not going to come here and read complaints and change things or remove characters or go back to season 1.

At least this statement accepts in an objective way that that's what it is.

That aside, the ratings are, in my opinion, a direct result of this so called evolution. They have found a bigger audience with the, "Friends Lite," formula and that is where their business is going to be from now on. They would have to be crazy to mess with their success.

This I agree. What label you choose to give is, of course, up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think syndication has had the biggest impact on the ratings, personally.

I don't know of anyone who started watching the show because they're fans of Mayim Bialik or because they think a cast of seven people must be more interesting than a cast of five people, but I do know of tons of people who started watching the show because they caught it in syndication and fell in love with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is this show's decline. Unless you are talking about the ratings, the whole subject is subjective. It boils down to "do I like it or not". Since the show is the number one rated comedy, it is not in decline in that aspect. Whether you like it or not, I do not care. I like it, there are enough people who feel the same to ensure that the show will not be canceled in the near future, so I could care less what your feeling on this matter is.

By "you", I mean people in general who do not like it and not any person specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little curious about this situation. Is this a common phenomenon with successful shows in the US - I mean ratings and accolades going up significantly during their run, till it reaches a position of great popularity, but some of the 'old fans' getting more and more dissatisfied and upset by the alleged changes in the show and and labeling it a sell-out? Or is this happening with TBBT only?

Asking since I'm completely inexperienced about how it goes for US sitcoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little curious about this situation. Is this a common phenomenon with successful shows in the US - I mean ratings and accolades going up significantly during their run, till it reaches a position of great popularity, but some of the 'old fans' getting more and more dissatisfied and upset by the alleged changes in the show and and labeling it a sell-out? Or is this happening with TBBT only?

Asking since I'm completely inexperienced about how it goes for US sitcoms.

This happens in just about everything including bluejeans. There is always some people who are going to claim whatever product was better before and has really gone down hill lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a combination of 1) the creative process naturally reaching its "peak", and 2) the fans getting restless, dissatisfied or bored by virtue of the show no longer being "NEW".

Any story has a beginning, middle, and THE END. The problem with sitcoms is the middle sometimes gets extended too long and the timing of the end is not known in advance. A writer of a book or a movie script has control over the pacing and direction of the story. A TV writer is at the mercy of ratings / actors leaving / network sudden cancellations / etc.

I've heard it told that on average, TV shows peak during season 3, and experience noticable drop in quality after season 5 (when the writers are struggling because they're out of things they originally wanted to say).

As for fans, it's human nature to crave something new and get dissatisfied with something already experienced. However good the show, after a few years, if you had a choice to keep watching the same show (even if there was NO drop in quality), or a new show that's just as good - wouldn't you subjectively feel that the new show is "better" (more enjoyable) just because it's NEW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little curious about this situation. Is this a common phenomenon with successful shows in the US - I mean ratings and accolades going up significantly during their run, till it reaches a position of great popularity, but some of the 'old fans' getting more and more dissatisfied and upset by the alleged changes in the show and and labeling it a sell-out? Or is this happening with TBBT only?

Asking since I'm completely inexperienced about how it goes for US sitcoms.

I noticed that you mentioned elsewhere that this is the first sitcom you have really watched and enjoyed. I know what it is like to be the ingenue, when everything is shiny and new and exciting. I kind of envy you.

I have been watching sitcoms since the Dick van Dyke show era. I haven't seen it all, but I've seen most of it. Every show has a life span, but the long term sucessful ones usually have a strong core premise that they stick to, and what they do with it makes the difference between "this is really cool" and "something has to be on TV, this is it"

One of the appeals of a new show can be that the characters are new, in fact can be almost limitless in variety, even though the stories are

"tried and true" or if you prefer,"dull and boring".

After all, "Boy meets girl" has been done a million times, it is the way different characters progress through the story that makes it interesting.

So, TBBT had a premise, a "beauty and the beast" storyline, with nerds! The rest is history.

Except for one thing. They changed the core premise.

Somewhere in the middle of season three, they brought in new writers, who used to work at nickelodeon, where they cater to tweens. New writers are not necessarily bad, but they can take time to hit their stride. Unfortunately, they seem to like tweenage drama. So they just added it.

This increased relationship drama, at the expense of the core Leonard/penny premise started to dilute the tension between, Leonard wanting to relate to Penny, and at the same time staying in his nerdy world with his nerdy friends. A world wildy unsuited for Penny.

All this could have maybe worked out, except for the Raj/Penny fiasco.

Let's say you meet a guy. He is cool and smart and funny, and you really like him. You start hanging out. You meet his friends. They're cool too. This is really something! Then one day you are out in his car and he hits someone's dog. Instead of stopping, he keeps going. His only reaction is that he is happy there is no damage to his car. He even laughs about it with his friends later. Then you never talk about it again. What is your opinion of this guy now?

I maintain that after they destroyed the Leonard/penny premise, they had to bring in all the other relationship stuff as a distraction. Now they have this new premise, whatever it is. "Nerds can survive in civilization with the love of a good woman", maybe?

There is no way I can look at TBBT in the same way after they "Hit the dog" .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think syndication has had the biggest impact on the ratings, personally.

I don't know of anyone who started watching the show because they're fans of Mayim Bialik or because they think a cast of seven people must be more interesting than a cast of five people, but I do know of tons of people who started watching the show because they caught it in syndication and fell in love with it.

That's not a proven theory through. Not every comedy grows in viewers from syndication, in fact, its the opposite. The older the show gets, the lower the ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed replies to my query.

One thing I'm getting from it is that if a show tries to stick to it's old format and remains unevolved over several years, then fans like @BigBang are going to get bored (and eventually leave), while if it tries to shake things up and make changes and add fresh aspects/characters, then fans like @Disgusted are going to find it unacceptable (and eventually leave). It sounds like a bit of a no-win situation to me. Given this difficulty, I'd say TBBT is managing to walk the tightrope pretty well.

I've heard it told that on average, TV shows peak during season 3, and experience noticable drop in quality after season 5 (when the writers are struggling because they're out of things they originally wanted to say).

This is probably why they're trying out new things they want to say, at this time - with overall successful results.

As for fans, it's human nature to crave something new and get dissatisfied with something already experienced. However good the show, after a few years, if you had a choice to keep watching the same show (even if there was NO drop in quality), or a new show that's just as good - wouldn't you subjectively feel that the new show is "better" (more enjoyable) just because it's NEW?

This, actually, depends on the individual - because I'm absolutely sure that given such a choice, I would any day prefer to watch the older show which I'm familiar with and whose characters I already love. Irrespective of whether that old show evolved/didn't evolve etc. Strangely, that seems to put me in the 'preferring the comfort zone' group.

Also, from @Disgusted's post, I realize that his point of disillusionment (as for some others) was the Raj/Penny incident, much more than the nitty-gritties of whether the show is changing or not.

Thinking about it, the show could probably do some things which I would hate and disagree with from the bottom of my heart, and would give me a similar reaction of anger and unhappiness about it (in my case, that would lead to my stopping watching the show immediately, instead of dragging it out).

I can think of some such hypothetical events which could repel me enough to break my love for the show. The Raj/Penny situation wasn't like that for me at all - I didn't feel any major moral outrage about it, I just found it silly and unnecessary and a bit sensationalist. (Have gone over my reasons for feeling this way a year ago, and won't repeat them). So it wasn't a deal-breaker for me by any stretch - one can always get over silly and unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...