Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts

Monday, May 24, 2010

'24'

The end of a series, of a constant - where one man stood out and above, and did what had to be done.  In a way it is quite fitting that the series ends as Mr. Obama proclaims a new world order. 

Jack is over and done, finished and gone, and as hard as Mr. Obama will try, and he will try - he cannot end American exceptionalism, and because he will fail, Jack will be back - even if it is only on the big screen.










24

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

State of the Union: Obama v Bush and Clinton



Last night, Mr. Obama spoke to the nation. He was, according to Neilson, watched in just over 37 million homes by 52 million people.

Big numbers for a person who received over 60 million votes. Apparently, some of the people didn't watch. Probably busy working.

Comparisons are fun, and I say this in all seriousness - the White House, regardless of inhabitant does look at every historical trend, pattern, blip ... THEY DO.

So, we should as well!


In 1993, Bill Clinton, for his 1st State of the Union, spoke to 44 million homes and nearly 67 million people. I was, I think, one of them.

In 1998, pre-impeachment, Bill Spoke to the nation and 36.5 million watched in 53 million homes. I doubt I watched.

In 1999, 30 million homes and nearly 45 million people watched Clinton AFTER he was impeached.

Bush's first speech, after the debacle of Florida was watched by 28 million homes and 40 million people. Not a good start.

In 2002, Bush spoke to the nation and 35 million homes tuned in with 52 million people watching. Obama tied, did not exceed.

In 2003, Bush spoke to the nation several months before the Iraq war, and 62 million Americans watched in 42 million homes. A nation divided over war, 1/2 hating Bush more than they hate evil - apparently watched.

In 2008, his last speech to the nation, which I did not watch, was seen in 28 million homes by nearly 38 million people. This at a time when Bush had one of the 'lowest' ratings of modern presidents. Not bad for someone we were told no one liked. Imagine if they liked the guy. Obama would have had to dance and juggle to get a better score.








Obama

Monday, November 24, 2008

24 - Redemption and Fools

The following bit is copied from a website and pasted here. I will not credit the website foir the mindless tripe, nor must I use them as an example of moronic behavior - but they made this tripe available on their website and I am simply appropriating the comments to make several points. The writer/moron is the best reason to keep abortion legal - morons and idiots should not be forced to endure a painful life, nor shouold the rest of us.

'24'

The ratings are not in dispute - I could care less. Rather, the brainless ignorance is. I have made several comments on how utterly stupid many people are who voted for Obama. This fool tops the list, which is hard to do. Are there fools who voted for McCain - yes, for sure. The difference - those fools are so because they believed Obama something he was not or bought in to the rhetoric of how threatening Obama would be. Not to set the issue of inexperience and the threat it will play in short time, but it is qualitatively different than that which is written below.


The show 24 debuted their special made-for-tv movie event on Sunday, to a pleasant increase in ratings.
According to Nielsen estimates, the show's prequel special - 24: Redemption - averaged 12.1 million viewers, better than the spring finale at 10.3 million, but still not as good as the sixth season's debut in 2007 at 15.8 million.
Ratings began to fall alongside Bush's ratings, as the show prominently featured scenes of torture, which has become passe since the election campaign came and went.
As a result, critics called the new prequel a "kinder, gentler" version of the action series.
A reflection of the times, let's hope!



'24' did so well, in Season 1-2-3-4-5-6 because of the writing, acting, directing, and production of the program. '24' lost viewers because of its idiotic showtime schedule. You CANNOT leave a program for eight to ten months and NOT lose viewers. We find other things to do, invest our time in other projects, and lose interest. Maybe 2-5% of the viewers disappeared.

This is especially true when terrorist after terrorist chooses Los Angeles in the program. Even in the real world, they choose other cities - New York, London, Baghdad, and New Delhi are but four. Yet '24' producers/writers kept them coming back time and again to Los Angeles. Consequently, 2-5% of the viewers left.

The writers created further mayhem when they created a show for season five that began with Arabs and ended with a president implicated, only made worse in season six by a maniacal vice president jockeying for power, doing illegal acts, implicated in an attempt on a president or other illegal activities - became too much for the '24' die-hard viewer, and they took a powder - maybe 2-5%.

The writers were yet again the villain with their strike. While Kiefer thinks they did the right thing holding it off a year, you for sure lost 5%, probably 10% of your viewers. This insane act on the part of the writers in Hollywood, created a huge hole, and when viewers are given other options that are easier and more accessible, they took it.

The general drag on any series after six seasons - you always lose viewers. X-Files did and it didn't have one scene of torture to offend the sensibilities of a debilitated tosser. Maybe 2-5% drop off.

The final issue is publicity. I admit I do not watch TV and had someone not told me, I would never have watched it. Other things to do. 2-5%.

Together we have 15% minimum drop up to a possible 30 or 35% drop.

If you are really one of those anal retentive types, you could check the numbers and see how I fare with my guesstimates. I think you find find them VERY close.

The fool who wrote the pasted bit, attributes it to torture. Laughable if the fool did not believe it, and if that naive view was not part of their world-view.

To the fool - very simply - 'torture' as defined by you and other nit-wits is going on this very second, will go on next week, and in January, February, March, and April, in 2010, 2011, 2013 ... and every year thereafter. If someone stopped watching a program because the behavior was unacceptable - well, you would find every Christian not watching a majority of shows because they show drug use, promiscuity, sex acts or references to sex acts ... and you, with your warped and naive view of a world, however 'icky icky poo poo' it may be, demonstrate why academics do not think much of the rest of the world. You truly represent the most infantile among us, even if I do not appreciate their elitism, I sure as heck understand why they believe as they do and on this specific issue - we both agree.

You would mock the Christian right for their abhorrence at sex or drugs on television, yet you become disturbed by 'torture'.

First - the sex and drugs are aimed at an entire age group, or even, more largely, at the population in general. Go for it, enjoy, do it, have fun. The 'torture' was aimed at one person, one group - it was aimed at whoever it was Jack Bauer was trying to get information from - including details on a nuclear threat. It is so often the soft-ended liberals who scream about the violations of human rights and ... I doubt more than 1-2% of Americans or for that matter any population on earth, would disagree with the proposition that: Torture is acceptable if an imminent threat exists in which a large number (hundreds up to hundreds of thousands) of American/other lives would be lost. On '24' it was always a certainty, it was never just for fun, just as it was never just for fun with the Bush administration.

Secondly, how you define torture - highly subjective and overly simplistic. The fool who wrote the pasted bit above would probably argue that the UN has already developed a reasonable understanding, accepted by the civilized world, as to what torture is. The fool would be only partially correct, having never read it for them self (possibly unable to understand really big words compromised of more than one syllable). So the fool is aware - making someone listen to rock music is considered torture. Assume someone is in a home and will not come out. Assume you have surrounded the home and blast rock music at them 24 hours a day. Torture by UN standards. The civilized world does not like that.

The people Jack was fighting, and the people we fight, will kill you in your sleep, awake, anywhere, anytime - and will kill you even more painfully when you explain to them you are a liberal shirtlifter who just wants to get along. You survive, not by the laws you believe Jack broke, or the Bush administration violated, but by the actions Jack took and those taken by intelligence and military services around the world. Only as a result of their actions, do we have the luxury of writing stupid posts about '24' losing viewers because the American public is tired of torture.

I agree - the American public is tired of hearing about torture. Do it to save us, do it when the knowledge as to a threat exists - and do it to save lives. The hue and cry from the soft-bellied liberals if no actions were taken to secure the information - AFTER an attack on a massive scale would be worse than sitting with a dentists drill on, and in your mouth everyday for a month.

Are there abuses? Certainly, but Jack didn't violate laws, nor did the Bush administration, nor will the Obama administration that will follow suit (although it will be kept much quieter).

Suffering fools is not easy.





fools


Tuesday, May 20, 2008

- 24 - To Come

Driving home today, on the same roads driven many times by Jack Baur, I thought about the missed season, reflected on the silliness of FOX executives and the shows producers, and then my mind wandered over to this small little issue for TV people - the absolute worst ratings ever. NO ONE is watching their programs. Well, no one unless you consider the shut-ins as a major demographic.

The best produced, best acted, best directed program on television since 2000, and you all went and ruined it. I am really, really, really, not happy with you.

Here is my thought - if you produce/make the best season ever ... it will do ... just ok. You have passed the point where the battalions of faithful will return and now, they expect the SINGLE BEST SHOW EVER ... or they will drop like flies on raid after the first episode. If I could bet with someone who believes otherwise I would because I seriously need to win something.

I liked that program, and now I am forced to watch HBO and Showtime movies.






Jack bauer

Sunday, May 11, 2008

TV, Strikes, Programming

During and after the strike - it was clear television was losing and the American people were not going to just forgive and forget - return to the TV when it was all over.

I recall reading one TV exec in one online Hollywood magazine say something to the effect that the audience would return, just because.

Apparently not.

Now - produce quality programs. Stop with whining and strikes. Spend your time acting not commenting on social issues. You are all paid to act/produce/direct NOT to be the social conscience of America. When your programs stink and you spend your time trying to be the social conscience - you will fail as you have.

I know I do not watch any TV on any network. I watch HBO and SHOWTIME and very little of that. Had you not gone on strike, I would have spent 2-3 hours per week watching TV.

Now, 1/2 that.

Ha.


No one is watching ... not anymore ... goodbye programming ... au revoir.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

24 - Fox TV Series - Season 7 - Re-Scheduled

24.

Dreary as this may get, it seems otherwise too complicated to express how very displeased we are with the decision to not finish and broadcast season 7.

Newspapers have seen drops of 7-16% each reporting period.

Television has seen its numbers drop. Oscars and sports events - very low numbers. The fact this year the Superbowl went up in numbers does not mean anyone is returning to watch TV rather more people were sold Direct TV this year than last.

Television programs suck and however you may wish to color them, they suck and the public knows this. We have tired of Idol (still high ratings but much lower than past years and while you may publicly deny the change, privately you must understand this or be in a coma) and Survivor - who knows what season they are on and where they have gone this time. Few people care - meaning the ones who determine ratings.

Of course you will show me that ratings for Idol are higher than any other programs and yes, but that isn't hard to do when everyone shuts their TV off after Idol, it only takes 1 viewer to make it 'more watched than any other.'

TV has lost ratings and good programs have lost ratings - LOST, before it went on its LSD trip, did very well ... then the public turned on it and amazingly, the producers decided ... the show would only go for another season or two and wrap itself up. It wasn't Gilligan's Island.

'24' LOST viewers in season 6. LOTS. I found it difficult to watch very boring crap. It was exciting to start, as it always is, but then you made a (in the '24' reality) dead president's brother, president and he was so indecisive and incapable of acting either presidential or acting period (the actor), that the whole season was a wash.

You filmed 8 episodes of season 7 and then (gasp) a strike, and you decide rather than DRAGGING the season into MAY, that you would just not have a season. Oh my gosh, what difficult decisions. Do you have a war planned for late April and need the time slot? Like anything you have planned will work out (it won't) as well as '24' a couple seasons back.

You have just given '24' the death knell and I am really not pleased with your irresponsible and stupid behavior. Did you resent the fact Surnow left, did you hate him for being conservative, did you just plain hate '24' and felt the deep desire to end it for all time, because you have done that whether your little brains can yet comprehend it or not.

Don't mistake me for some '24' twit who watched the show and went on community boards or the internet to comment afterward. I never set up a website to follow the program and its driving around LA. I cared about a well acted, well written program that made all the other programs pale when stacked against '24'.

You lost a percent of viewers with a crappy season 6. You lost a LOT MORE with this stupid strike and will have lost even more postponing it to January 2009.

A few of your brain cells are working - viewers will return ... SOME VIEWERS you twits, not all. Not enough to push the program back where it was two seasons ago, and when the show lags, you will lose even more.

I like to think of it as 100% were with you in season 4 and 5, you started with 90% in season 6 and lost 20% with the crappy season. You end 6 with 70% and after 8 months waiting for 7, you would have begun 7 with 50%. You will now lose 15-20% waiting until January. A great PR campaign and fast paced first two hours will bring in 25% more - puts you at 55-60%. Wow. What a number. You can claim victory and close shop, except when the numbers are looked at as I have offered them above. 8 months between seasons is stupid. Starting in January is stupid. UNLESS YOU REVERSE YOURSELVES AGAIN and put the show on starting March 3 through June, you will have set an irreversible course for the program and by your foolishness, set in motion the replacement with a brainless, idiotic program that appeals to stupid people on LSD.

And don't give us crap about June and it needs a hiatus and the contract and ... you have been abel to find more excuses for a pathetic season than a four year old who wants to stay up just another minute. If you run through June, you still get 3-4 months hiatus. You can still begin filming in Aug and Sept. Your actors really will not be too upset not working for four months. I think they can live with it. Actually you had, in season 4-5, filmed 6 episodes in advance and you did two at a time which means 3 separate occasions. So - start in October and film each week and you will have 6+ in the can by January. It isn't like you couldn't ... you sent Sutherland off to jail in December. There is no commandment about showing a new show in June. way back when, new shows would show up until May/June. You coul, just once, try it the old way.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Where did they go???

For many years I have been annoyed with television. Well, not exactly television. A television is just a box of some form or another, but rather the programs on television, actors on television, executives at the networks that produce programs for television. All are responsible.

There were several programs I would watch only to turn on one week and find rerun or not find anything. Some weeks it would run in pairs - two weeks of no new shows, or two weeks of re-runs. It was a serious turn-off and did result on several occasions in my turning the television off and not returning for 3-4 weeks. The net result of this - the American people lost interest in top rated shows and they dropped in viewership.

Then the executives at the networks fell out of the stupid tree and decided to revamp the way seasons were constructed. When I was young, the new 'Fall Season' began around Labor day and or very near the day I started school. While I did not enjoy returning to school, there was a silver lining - new programs.

A number of years passed and I paid little attention to television and when I again turned the TV on in the 1990s, seasons began in October and November and by 2005, several began their seasons whenever ... no rhyme or reason - just random.

This assumes people pay attention to schedules, watch at random times and do not care about structure or order in their lives. they have nothing better to do than tune in on March 11 to watch a new season or January 8 or June 21. But in the real world we live our lives quietly with structure and do not have time to monitor random television schedules.

The net result of this - the American people lost interest in top rated shows and they dropped in viewership.

Then we throw out shows that appeal to the lowest common denominator, shows intended for the severely stupid, and or mentally handicapped. In fact, that is unfair to individuals who have mental handicaps - they appreciate programs that appeal to the greatest ability of people not programs that mock or denigrate.

Then the strike ... and now, according to an article in Times Online, January 31, 2008:

American TV networks have lost almost a quarter of their audiences because of the Hollywood writers' strike, according to new figures, and executives fear that “orphaned” viewers may never return.
The Nielsen ratings organisation found that US viewership for last week's opening of the 2008 TV season was down 21 per cent compared with the same week last year, when new episodes of hit shows such as Desperate Housewives and Grey's Anatomy were aired.


Bad news, yet again.

Dear Executives:

I appreciate the suffering you have endured as you smacked your head on every branch as you fell from the stupid tree, but if you want to save yourselves (long term) you need to make radical changes to your programming. You can most likely get some viewer interest back - should there be a war or an attack on the US or some other country, but short of that great programs will lose and have lost an audience. You think you can get it back - that is unfortunately one effect of all the tree whacking you suffered as you fell from the tree. No, you will never get it all back. A few more times like this and you will be paying advertisers to advertise on your programs.

Signed:
Unhappy

Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.