Monday, February 7, 2011
THE GREAT DIVIDE: As of today, the average domestic gross of the 10 Best Picture Oscar nominees is just over $126M, and at least 5 (possibly 6) of the nominees seem likely to cross the $100M barrier by the end of their domestic runs, and Toy Story 3 is both the top-grossing and one of the best-reviewed films of last year. However, over on the television side, there's a massive divergence between critical and commercial favorites--look at last week's overall ratings, with a top 10 made up of Idol x2, a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, the Pro Bowl, NCIS, Criminal Minds, Blue Bloods, Bones, Two and A Half Men, and House. Nary a one of those is even remotely a critical favorite (though House used to be), and Two and A Half Men may be the biggest critical punching bag on TV. Heck, in the Top 25 shows, the closest to a critical favorite is Big Bang Theory (#19, but it was a repeat). Admittedly, the key demo Top 25 looks more critically friendly--Parks and Rec at #10, a Modern Family repeat at #13, 30 Rock at #16, and Community at #25. Add to that that audiences have staunchly rejected a number of critical faves (both on broadcast and cable) over the past few years--Lone Star, Terriers, Pushing Daisies--and I wonder, has television ever been so divided, not just between critics and audiences, but between younger and older, with some shows apparently exclusively watched by the young (Parks and Rec, Community) and some shows exclusively watched by the old (Harry's Law and Blue Bloods)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This just made me think of the sight gag from last week's 30 Rock, when Jack said "crap" and his voice-activated remote switched to Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
ReplyDeleteRats. I'm old now. I do watch Blue Bloods and don't watch Parks & Rec and Community. (I'm trying to get into P&R, really.) Although I miss Blue Bloods on Friday night. It was such a good Friday night comfort show (see also: Numb3rs, which I loved watching on Friday nights. I had just enough brain cells left to deal with that level of show and nothing more.)
ReplyDeleteI assume ThingThrowers are also monkeysee readers, but just in case, see related: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/02/07/133570300/the-chicago-code-delivers-a-smart-and-compelling-new-take-on-an-old-genre
And there's kind of always been crap in the top 20: http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2011/01/the-10-worst-shows-to-be-top-20-hits
Although, I think the audience has become so fragmented in so many ways that your point about the division being greater than ever before seems accurate, without me digging around in Nielsen history to see if that's perception or reality.
ReplyDeleteAh, Kabletown synergy!
ReplyDeleteIt's not new. Top shows of 1982 were Dallas, Three's Company, Jeffersons, Joanie Loves Chachi, Dukes of Hazzard. M*A*S*H was the only real critic's darling in the top 20. Emmys that year were dominated by Hill St. Blues and Taxi, the latter of which had been a ratings hit earlier in its run before it got bumped around the schedule.
ReplyDeleteI'm ashamed of how simple it's become for me--Alan says to watch something, I watch. Alan says it sucks, I generally don't watch. The only exceptions are various PBS and Discovery shows.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's new..As someone mentioned, there's always been dreck in the top 20 and there have been quality shows that never took off commercially.....a quick look at the 80s & 90's shows Cupid and Sports Night and Frank's Place and Shannon's Deal too IIRC..all critical faves that died untimely deaths partially brought on by low ratings (though you can argue that network management of the shows in some cases prevented the shows from thriving, ratings wise) Yet Veronica's Closet, Suddenly Susan, The Single Guy, etc lived on longer with higher ratings.
ReplyDeleteAnd quality is always subjective; even critics often don't agree.
What may be new is that so many more people are aware of the ratings and where shows stand (due to the internet) and there are more places where quality niche programming (like Mad Men, Breaking Bad currently, and in recent history Sopranos and Six Feet Under can survive...or even come to exist in the first place.)
I do wonder about the change over time in the measurement, awarenes and importance of younger viewers' preferences. When I was growing up for the most part we had one TV, ruled with an iron fist by one middle aged person. Now households typically have multiple tvs, allowing younger viewers preferences to show up more in the ratings.
Watt hit on something that goes into the discussion: TV as "comfort". Going out to a movie involves forethought, and often, discussion between a group before a choice is made. TV is always there, and if you're home by yourself, little or no emotional involvement other than to turn it on.
ReplyDeleteMan, have I watched my share of dumb TV just because it was easy on my overtaxed brain.
No shame in that. That, to me, is one of the best things about finding a critic with whose views you tend to agree: you can really rely on that critic's opinions.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Bones and House aren't as "old" as 2 1/2 Men. I say this mainly because I watch House and Bones, and my mom watches 2 1/2 Men.
ReplyDeleteHEY!!!!!!!! I watch Blue Bloods and I am NOT OLD!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteSorry. Little sensitive about the whole age thing :)
1. The best tv today is far better than the best tv of twenty years ago precisely because it's possible to program for a 5-million audience today.
ReplyDelete2. Pixar sort of distorts the scales on the movie side. Still, there's a lot of krep in the top ten.
I am still not over the cancellation of Terriers.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else think it's creepy that old people watch 2.5 Men? I accidentally caught an episode once and it was nothing but horny guys trying to have sex with younger women for 22 minutes. Is Charlie Sheen really the voice of the boomer+ generations?
ReplyDeleteI think the "middle aged iron fist" theory accounts for some of the difference I feel in tv watching now - when I was a kid I could count on my friends and their families likely watching the same shows. Since we were all roughly the same class and moral background the same shows were to be approved/disallowed. I'm not so sure that's the case anymore.
ReplyDeleteHey, Blue Bloods is one of my favorites, and I'm not... <oh>... nevermind, nothing to see here.
ReplyDeleteI agree the overall level of quality is significantly higher, as it the overall number of options on TV. I see a divergence in the type of show that is mass produced for a wide audience (reality TV, crime procedurals) and more nuanced shows that are often even more enjoyable to smaller audiences - implying that most people's most treasured shows are not ratings giants...</oh>
Same goes for me and NCIS.
ReplyDeleteNCIS has some skew, but it's still in the Top 25 for younger demo. Blue Bloods is Top 10 overall, but not even in the Top 25 for the younger demo.
ReplyDeleteI watched The Chicago Code last night and now have the kind of crush on the show that Linda Holmes appears to have. I'm definitely making time to watch it in my already overcrowded TV lineup.
ReplyDeleteAs for comfort TV, I'm with you, Watts. My current lineup includes a number of comfort shows (good for simultaneously working on my knitting projects). I DVR anything I like that might require careful watching.
I wonder (though I doubt anyone's still reading this thread)... how old ARE those of us who are watching Blue Bloods? I'll go first - I'm 36.
ReplyDelete