Mallozzi and Mullie as show runners. What do we think now?

[PG15]

Seems 'live' plus SD was not counted until First Strike ... so again, that says nothing, doesn't it? Square one - apples and oranges, again.

Again, if contribution of +whatever doesn't amount to anything significant, then they won't waste money counting it.

Evidently it wasn't important back then.

Don't forget to factor in other countries. Many Europeans I know have tuned out like myself.

How many?

I suppose they have higher standards for superior entertainment, you can argue. lol.

Let's not.

[Pitry]

Oy, look, there's this topic.

Ignoring the ratings talk and speaking simply about my persona; feeling, I was les than enthusiastic when I heard Mallozzi and Mullie were becoming showrunners. Their SG1 episodes, with the exception of season 4, were always the ones I enjoyed less and the ones I found to be the more derivative.
After 26 episodes of their Atlantis, I feel my worries were justified. It's not just which characters they kicked out, what story-arcs they chose etc. It's everything. There are more episodes that feel derivative; less stories I find intriguing; I feel less emphasis on characters as a whole; more explosions and less substance, to put it another way. Stargate Atlantis feels much more like the generic scifi show than SG1 ever did.

[Ncc-72452]

like BSG, Eureka, ST?

Kinda... I wanted to get out of Sci-Fi and show other science fiction shows on other networks. I agree that BSG and Eureka get similar ratings, but they air on the same network. And ST is in repeats. *grins* I always find it gratifying to see old eps of Star Trek get ratings on par with the new stuff. Gotta love the classics!

agreed it's not as good as Atlantis however I was talking about the ratings. Eureka's pulling in 2.0's for live +sd

Isn't that better than Atlantis? Just in live + sd? Oh! You meant that Eureka's ratings are better, but I came back and said that Atlantis's quality was better...

Right?

thank you

You're welcome.

but we agree that Atlantis wasn't cancelled because of ratings, right?

As I stated earlier, I would not presume to know the reasons for the show's cancellation, as it would be pure conjecture supported by, at best, circumstantial evidence. I will say that there was no logic in the show's cancellation. Ratings in season 5 have been on par or better than season 4's, and it was renewed in season 4, obviously.

However, I stand by my original point that Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled, at least in part, because of ratings, and its ratings were better than Atlantis's. However, Enterprise was shown on a different network, and low ratings for one network could be high for another. I only meant to provide some global perspective on the Atlantis's ratings.

actually according to Ncc-72452 it's more like 2.5 million HH's out of 74 million HH's

Umm... Is it 2.5 million households or 2.5 million viewers? Because while it is 74 million households, that's actually like 190 million viewers based on average household size. Just curious...

[Ncc-72452]

Duh.



No, it's getting with the times.

As far as I know, the reason we don't include Live+7 numbers for the previous seasons is that there is no point to that (same reason why we're not using Live+14 or Live+ 365 now). Low DVR usage meant that adding Live+7 numbers would probably only give you a few tens of thousands of viewers, at best, so why bother?

But now, we're getting 30% increases, so it does matter.



The correct analogy would be to know that the plant is unperturbed to any significant amount of sunlight in the first 3 years, but is perturbed by it in the last 2, and then proceed with the "faulty" experiment you described. The results may not be airtight, but they won't be out of whack either.

And this is not an exact science.

I think you misunderstood me, but I didn't express myself very well. Lemme try again...

I think that any direct comparison of viewer numbers between seasons 1 - 3 and 4 & 5 is impossible. While seasons 1 - 3 had higher live + sd figures than season 4 & 5, I firmly believe that seasons 4 & 5 's live + sd ratings have been affected by the readily available technology of DVRs and DVDs and internet viewing options. (Not to mention entire episodes being leaked). Without some kind of "calibration" factor of how many live viewers were lost to DVR, you cannot compare the data sets without one set being skewed.

In the same breathe, you cannot compare viewer numbers of seasons 4 & 5 to viewer numbers of seasons 1 -3. How many potential viewers of these early years were lost because they didn't yet own a DVR? No one can possibly know. I understand that we saw a massive boom in DVRing around the time of Season 3, but that's about when DVRs became so readily available, and the practice became so popular. Potential Atlantis DVRers did not yet have that ability, and so, you have lost viewers that cannot be accounted for, just like DVR has taken live viewers from 4 & 5 that cannot be accounted for.

If Atlantis had gone to Season 10 (whimpers) and a way was found to include DVD sales and internet viewing into ratings, you couldn't compare these mythical future season's higher number of viewers to 4 and 5. You would need to introduce a "calibration" factor to compensate for the advantage given to the future data set by the new technology.

Thus, I say it's impossible to compare the two data sets without skewing the numbers of one in favor of another. As I've said earlier though, it's kind of a mute point in the overall global perspective of ratings. Looking at it from that level, it would be outside of your "visual" threshold, so to speak. The change would be so minuscule as to not matter. The ratings still stunk.

[PG15]

Well, like I said, it's not an exact science. We do have a calibration factor for how many live viewers were lost to DVR in recent years; that's what Live+7 is. Potential viewers who were lost due to lack of DVR in the early years just doesn't count, simply because they didn't watch the show. The reason why they didn't watch is frankly unimportant as only the numbers matter to the suits upstairs.

Either I'm misreading, or you're still not explaining yourself well enough, because it sounds like I just covered this. The viewing numbers for Atlantis is a definite amount. You can count it. In the early years, most of these people watched it live or on the same day. You can count how many people did this. These days, fewer people are doing that, while more are watching it later in the week. You can also count how many people are doing this. And then it's just a simple process of comparing the two populations and see if there's growth. The reason behind the growth is again irrelevant as only the numbers matter.

Well, it's actually how many people watch the commercials, not the show, but it's the same principle.

Skewing, in this case, doesn't pose a big problem. They only factored in the DVR numbers when it became significant, and obviously it was when the technology became more widely used. I don't see the problem here.

This has nothing to do with quality.

[Jumper_One]

Kinda... I wanted to get out of Sci-Fi and show other science fiction shows on other networks. I agree that BSG and Eureka get similar ratings, but they air on the same network.

they don't. Eureka's pulling 2.0's, BSG however...

Spoiler:

And ST is in repeats. *grins* I always find it gratifying to see old eps of Star Trek get ratings on par with the new stuff. Gotta love the classics!

indeed, ST's great

Isn't that better than Atlantis? Just in live + sd?

yup

Oh! You meant that Eureka's ratings are better, but I came back and said that Atlantis's quality was better...

Right?

LOL I'm not sure

As I stated earlier, I would not presume to know the reasons for the show's cancellation, as it would be pure conjecture supported by, at best, circumstantial evidence. I will say that there was no logic in the show's cancellation. Ratings in season 5 have been on par or better than season 4's, and it was renewed in season 4, obviously.

I completely agree

However, I stand by my original point that Star Trek: Enterprise was canceled, at least in part, because of ratings, and its ratings were better than Atlantis's. However, Enterprise was shown on a different network, and low ratings for one network could be high for another. I only meant to provide some global perspective on the Atlantis's ratings.

also it's impossible to compare ratings

Umm... Is it 2.5 million households or 2.5 million viewers? Because while it is 74 million households, that's actually like 190 million viewers based on average household size. Just curious...

you're right, my bad. it's 2.5 million viewers because as I said earlier the HH's may stay the same but the VPH changes

[Briangate78]

As per the Ratings discussion this is all I have left to say....

Spoiler:

[Ncc-72452]

they don't. Eureka's pulling 2.0's, BSG however...

Holy Hannah! () I didn't think BSG's ratings were that low! That is really fascinating!

I actually meant that they had similar numbers to Atlantis rather than each other, but I didn't realize that Eureka was doing that well...

indeed, ST's great

The best.

also it's impossible to compare ratings

My bad, number of viewers.

[Jumper_One]

Holy Hannah! () I didn't think BSG's ratings were that low! That is really fascinating!

here you go however remember those are just the live +sd ratings!

Spoiler:

I actually meant that they had similar numbers to Atlantis rather than each other, but I didn't realize that Eureka was doing that well...

oh ok

The best.

My bad, number of viewers.

yeah viewers makes a lot more sense than HH's

[Freekzilla]

Well, since the show is now over. I think one could safely say that the job they did as show runners was horrible. Plain and simple. The greater their involvement, the worse the franchise got. I for one do NOT want either of them to have any involvement in any future SG show, movie, production, heck or anything to do with SG from now on. I'd much rather have someone who eats, sleeps, lives and breaths SG than have someone more interested in eating deserts and other foods 24/7. Sorry, but I think it's better to have an SG obsessed person holding the reigns. They tend to have a greater sense of direction and attention to detail than the casual writer/producer/show runner.

[JadedWraith]

I'd much rather have someone who eats, sleeps, lives and breaths SG than have someone more interested in eating deserts and other foods 24/7. Sorry, but I think it's better to have an SG obsessed person holding the reigns. They tend to have a greater sense of direction and attention to detail than the casual writer/producer/show runner.

Well, if you're hiring, Gateworld is a good place to start recruiting.

Personally, although I disagree with some of their choices, I don't think they have done such a bad job...or I wouldn't be spending so much time here. I think it is a good thing when people have creative outlets other than SG or SGA. It would become an obsession and would eventually be detrimental.