- This topic has 25,813 replies, 124 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
they decided to put maybe the youngest cast of NCIS brand on sundays as 8.
The young cast is interesting and it will be interesting to see the ratings drama play out, but I personally don’t think it will mean anything. The young cast aside, NCIS is still very much an old people show. It doesn’t seem to matter which new “thing” they tack on to the franchise, it always skews very old. And after the big Supergirl debacle, I don’t think CSB is holding out any hope for the youth of the world to come flocking to a new show that’s really just the same show for a franchise that’s…what…20 years old now?
Yes, but this also means that unlike supergirl , this show has already a fandom that sees the show, they have around 8/9 million viewers and btw 1.3/1.5 demo ratings( 18-49), their lowest ratings i think was 1.2 when Blindspot returned from hiatus in February and these numbers were on a monday at 10pm( against blindspot), this means that there is a chance that on sundays at 8 they may get even more, also this show is from the 3 NCIS shows the one with lowest viewers according to some article i read last year, bc this is the youngest cast of the 3, so yeah, sundays at 8 will be interesting, especially bc this NCIS LA is a way better competition to OUAT than Madam secretary, that i say a show for old people.
[adrotate group="5"]this show has already a fandom that sees the show, they have around 8/9 million viewers and btw 1.3/1.5 demo ratings( 18-49),
mmmm. That’s not really a fandom. That demo means it’s a very low percent of the overall eyeballs that are watching whereas with OUAT almost the entire eyeball count is the demo. I honestly don’t think it’s going to mean anything. It’ll either even out OR it’ll hurt NCIS–people are more inclined to miss or DVR procedural because you don’t need to see every episode since there is no overarching mythology at play.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"4) So basically everything that made it into the World Book
Yes! That’s exactly right. Also, they log giant encyclopedia-like tomes around. To coffee shops. I mean, those two are dedicated researchers. I am always going to be impressed and a little jealous, because (a) they look like they are having so much fun, and (b) it looks like the perfect relationship. Who wouldn’t want to nerd out over the history of the Children of the Forest for hours over a cappuccino in the beautiful NM hight desert.
I didn’t know the ale house part about Tolkien — that’s awesome. 🙂
At least not in the network/ad buyers realm. We, the viewers, are the ones being sold. The ad buyers are buying our time, our eyes, our desire to check out the whatever they’re shilling out.
Ah, that’s an excellent point. I always forget that from the network’s perspective, a show is just a canvas to use for ads. From that perspective, perhaps the comparison with a fiction author isn’t fair — there aren’t any ads in a novel, so that’s a different kind of “product” being sold, and perhaps a different relationship to the audience.
*points to above for product discussion* but yes I agree that A and E aren’t really trying to tell a story anymore. Or at least, they don’t plan a full coherent sensible story. Just look at what happened to Sean/Robin this year.
Yes, and to go back to @svsm’s point, isn’t that exactly where what floats the show seems to come into play? I wonder whether anyone among the show runners or writers realizes that the audience they have is mostly coming back for #2, and out of investment into #1. I don’t think A&E are self-aware enough to go the cynical route, along the lines of “hey, we don’t need to put in any effort. They’ll keep coming back for Lana, Bobby, and Colin, it doesn’t matter what bs we throw at them.” But they might as well.
In retrospect this makes Rumple look like an idiot that he relied on a dark curse to get him to Storybrooke whne there are numerous other methods he could’ve used.
Yup. But I don’t think A&E care
I was talking in fandom that watches NCIS vs watching Supergirl, not the ratings, the ratings i only posted to compare with OUAT, that may have had this ratings of 1.1/1.2 in this last epis, lets see as well if the people that said they would not see next season will return or not, even tho i think they will, although i expect maybe in a no give ratings way, all depends on how much Cs they will talk about it, bc RB fans are almost done with the stupidity, SW fans same thing, OQ fans are on a range against the show, Sq fans are just like OQ fans, who knew that SQ and OQ fans would have something in common, so yeah, i guess for the 1st time i really hope they promote a lot of CS and how much non sense adam and the media report and also how many CBS will promote the show.
But at this point and based that they will have a full season this year, i say is better for people to prepare for a S7 maybe last and maybe half, but at this point i dont see S6 being the last, i dont think ABC will do like what they did with Nashville or Castle this year and cancelled on that same year, withought making a big thing about it, so yeah i see a S7 in the future.
I didn’t know the ale house part about Tolkien — that’s awesome
“The Eagle and Child.” It’s in Oxford; he hung out with CS Lewis and GK Chesterton there. I’ve actually been there. I may have had a serious nerdy moment inside….
(none of you are surprised by this, I’m sure)
From that perspective, perhaps the comparison with a fiction author isn’t fair — there aren’t any ads in a novel, so that’s a different kind of “product” being sold, and perhaps a different relationship to the audience.
I don’t want to say more “pure” but it’s the only word coming to mind. The author and the work are being sold, as it should be. Though, I guess you can make a case for the agent, the publishing house, and other works by same house?
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken
Another really interesting article that is a sort of response to the AVClub article I linked a few days a go about fan entitlement. It hits on some of the points that @sciencevsmagic brought up.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken Another really interesting article that is a sort of response to the AVClub article I linked a few days a go about fan entitlement. It hits on some of the points that @sciencevsmagic brought up.
I’ve read it a few times now and have a few bullet point thoughts.
–First, some of this is well argued and well reasoned. I especially liked the final minor bit about fan culture and religion and its intersection with social media. Part of my graduate work was on the nature of this and I think he’s spot on with how fan culture and religion both invite this sort of fervent fanaticism and devotion with a desire to defend it, uphold it, and–yes–worship it in an extreme outpouring, seen in some sort of loud action (war, bombings, tweets).
–However, I’m not sure I like some of his conclusions about the fans themselves. He mentions how some fans don’t understand the nature of narrative and drama. This bothers me a lot. Just because you’re a fan of something doesn’t mean that you’re not informed and intelligent on how things work. It doesn’t mean that you’re just a loud entitled fervent believer who is simply voicing what you want without being informed to how a thing functions. I mean, look at the people on this site, heck even just this thread. Do we sometimes giggle and goof off? Sure. Do we sometimes talk in Tumblr-esse? Yes. But do we have very enlightening, well reasoned, well argued, rational, intelligent conversations? Heck YES. The same can be said for the essays on Tumblr that point out all the misogyny/rape culture/racism/homophobia ect on the show. They aren’t the delusional rantings of angry fans. They come from college graduates, masters and PhD level writers and thinkers; they come from professional psychologists, philosophers, women’s and media critics. I don’t think fans should have the loudest voice in the room, but their voice shouldn’t be dismissed just because of some preconceived notion that they are ignorant for not being “on the inside.”
–Part of it sounds like the writer is the one who’s a bit bitter and reactionary. He’s the author who isnt’ happy to have his work critiqued by what he considers “angry fans” who, in his estimation, don’t understand the nature of narrative. This sort of goes back to Kiki’s tumblr post about the entitled white man in power.
Ok,those are the thoughts for now. I’ll wait for yours.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"At least not in the network/ad buyers realm. We, the viewers, are the ones being sold. The ad buyers are buying our time, our eyes, our desire to check out the whatever they’re shilling out.
Ah, that’s an excellent point. I always forget that from the network’s perspective, a show is just a canvas to use for ads. From that perspective, perhaps the comparison with a fiction author isn’t fair — there aren’t any ads in a novel, so that’s a different kind of “product” being sold, and perhaps a different relationship to the audience.
Yes, it’s not really fair to compare OUAT to A Song of Ice and Fire because they are completely different and the process of making them is different. However, it is fair to compare OUAT to Buffy, and Joss never treated Buffy the way A&E are treating OUAT.
"All your questions are pointless"
. However, it is fair to compare OUAT to Buffy, and Joss never treated Buffy the way A&E are treating OUAT.
That is true; however Joss was also working in a time when social media was pretty nonexistent (the same can be said with Damon and Carlton with LOST–Twitter just starting to become a thing when the show went off air). When Buffy ended in 2003, Facebook was barely a thing; it was all about MySpace but that didn’t have the outreach that Twitter/Tumblr do. The social media aspect of this whole thing is really important to keep in mind. So we need a modern TV show run by a white male, with a large fanbase with easy access to social media.
I think the recent CW shows are the better example. Jason Rothenberg, who runs “The 100” for example, is actually the best example especially given the Clexa drama of this past season. The show/Jason made the decision to finally put together the two characters that the fans were rabid for (think SwanQueen but…surprisingly louder?) and then killed off one of the characters. It was met with…more than anger. Death threats to Jason were instant. The fans demanded–loudly and violently–that Lexa be brought back. Given that it was a LGBT relationship, the outcry was even more extreme that what we’re seeing right now with Robin, for example.
The difference, for me, is that Jason Rothenberg doesn’t treat his main character Clarke (someone very much in S1 Emma Swan mold) like A and E treat Emma Swan for S5. Putting her in a relationship didn’t dull her down, it didn’t make her passive (far from it). Her love interest and her romance didn’t become the center of the story; it was a part but the main story still remained Clarke, her quest for peace with a different set of people, and a rather scifi threat. And when there was outcry over Lexa’s death, Jason–from what I can tell, I admit to be a more passive fan, simply watching and discussing with others calmly and NO social interaction if I can help it–didn’t treat the fans like A and E treat theirs. He stuck to his guns but there wasn’t the same level of snark. And, like I said, the more important part…he didn’t change the show to feed into the fans OR change the overall narrative to get to a certain point. There was clearly a plan all along.
ETA
So Jason Rothenberg (of the aforementioned The 100) wrote a very long post about Lexa’s death, social outcry, and reactions. He makes some compelling points about the things we’re discussing. Even if you don’t watch the show, worth the read to get inside the head of another show runner and to help the discussion along.
https://medium.com/@jrothenberg/the-life-and-death-of-lexa-e461224be1db#.vr6h3on2a
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Again, thanks for the link @RumplesGirl.
And so we have these three elements – one old as fandom itself, one rooted in technological advances and one impacted by the corporatization of storytelling – coming together in such a way to truly break fandom.
I don’t know if these elements are the sole contributers to the fan behaviour described in the article.
I’ll use a parallel sports situation to illustrate my point. I’m an avid cricket fan. In one cricket playing country, you see eerily similar examples of extreme fan behaviour. The entitlement is present, the death threats, effigy burning, house stoning, social media bullying and overidentification with the team to the point where even the slightest criticism is taken as an insult to national pride. The game of cricket, like the entertainment industry, has changed over the years (becoming more commercial) and fans from all countries frequent social media. Yet, this extreme behaviour is nowhere near as prevalent in other cricket playing countries. The point I’m trying to make is that it is driven by cultural and socio-political factors more so than technology.
Now, getting back to the matter at hand – I’m not sure what fandom is like in countries other than the US. Would fans in countries like Norway, reputed to be laid-back, be as vocal or as passionate? Would countries that don’t have the same high rates of consumerism or entertainment consumption display the same entitlement or overidentification? Would countries where being vocal is not seen as desirable have such an engaged fan base? I don’t know. But I suspect not. I’m in no way intending to criticize American culture. Fandom can achieve some very positive things – more inclusivity and better representation for example. This too, has a cultural aspect. You can see the connection between the Elsa campaign and a culture that values freedom of expression, diversity and individualism.
So my (tentative) conclusion is that fan behaviour is strongly influenced by culture, more so than technology and might be seen as a microcosm of the society it is based in. I also think that the article is being overly dramatic when it says that ‘fandom is broken’.
If anyone does know about how fandom manifests itself in different countries and cultures, I’d be interested to hear about it. No doubt, each one would have its own quirks and bad behaviour.
The topic ‘Emma + Baelfire = Swanfire’ is closed to new replies.