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

[Ncc-72452]

huh? I certainly agree that she's a lot more controversial than ie Sam or Woolsey but that's it. some people like TBTB's decisions, others don't. this is JMO of course

FINALLY! Thank YOU!!!!!!

hm even though I never declared your so called facts to be void, go ahead

"so-called facts"?

I said, "she's controversial"

you said that she's not.

I defined controversial.

You disputed my definition by saying that by that definition, every decision ever made is controversial.

You attempted to void my definition by questioning it.

How is a definition a "so-called" fact. I'm pretty sure a dictionary definition is about as factual as you can get... Depending of course upon what stage of development the language is in.

really? how so?

As compared to other sci-fi shows of a comparable nature.

agreed

Yeah! I LOVE this show!

yup

Wait, it's coming! It gets good!

LOL everyone?

LOL, Okay, maybe not everyone!

yeah so? how many people have access to SCI FI?

Approximately 74 million homes. With an average household size of 2.61, this is 193.14 million viewers. Refining the numbers, 1.3% of these watch Atlantis. I won't make the same adjustment for SCC. I'll assume everyone has access to FOX.

sometimes. oh and let's not forget Eureka

I watch Eureka occasionally, but it's not as good as Atlantis. I consider it more of a harmless diversion myself.

so? what's your point?

I would submit that my point was self-evident. Altantis's ratings are poor when held in a much larger arena. Numbers don't lie.

I never referred to the show's ratings as great or amazing. please read my posts. however the ratings did improve, that's a fact

I have read your other posts, that is what prompted mine. While I agree that you have never maintained that the show's ratings were stellar, I find this bickering about which season's ratings were better to be a mute point. The show's ratings were, well, awful; and, in any event, the show was canceled.

If you LOVE Seasons 1-3, don't let any talk about ratings deter you! Simply LOVE those seasons. If you liked Season 4 & 5, don't get a false sense of pride because the ratings were improving. They had nowhere to go but up. Simply LOVE Seasons 4 & 5. If you love Seasons 1 -5, don't let the crappy ratings deter you, simply LOVE the show! If you love or hate CONTROVERSIAL characters , continue to love or hate them.

I prefer Seasons 1 - 3. I don't care what the ratings say, and no matter what, I know that the simple live ratings were higher than 4 & 5. That's a fact that cannot be disputed. Oh, other factors like DVRs and DVDs can be brought in, but in the end, the point is mute because overall, the show's ratings STANK! But it was our show, and we LOVED it, or part of it anyway. And it had nothing to do with the ratings...

[Ncc-72452]

Because the contribution to the ratings from Live+7 has increased dramatically since Season 3.

Dude, that's because more people have access to the technology.

Including those numbers in a comparison of ratings of seasons that don't have those numbers is spinning. It's introducing another variable to the equation. In a scientific experiment on plants, it would be like recording water and fertilizer content for 3 years, then including energy incident by sunlight for the last two years and comparing the results. There's no "calibration" factor to account for the missing numbers in the first 3 years. You'd be skewing your data.

[PG15]

Dude, that's because more people have access to the technology.

Duh.

Including those numbers in a comparison of ratings of seasons that don't have those numbers is spinning.

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.

It's introducing another variable to the equation. In a scientific experiment on plants, it would be like recording water and fertilizer content for 3 years, then including energy incident by sunlight for the last two years and comparing the results. There's no "calibration" factor to account for the missing numbers in the first 3 years. You'd be skewing your data.

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.

[RealmOfX]

In regard to the ratings across the years of SGA, it is better to view them in linear so you can get a clearer picture of what they represent.



What we see here is actually a show in decline, there is a downward trend for most of the first three years. The fourth year initially continued that trend but then turned it around some and so far the fifth year is marginally improving.

I just used the ratings figures from GW and the value of a ratings point to number of households has changed over the years. To make a true comparison you would need to make some adjustments.

What that chart says to me is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of the creative choices of M&M, they did their jobs as showrunners and stopped the decline and started to improve the show.

[Briangate78]

In regard to the ratings across the years of SGA, it is better to view them in linear so you can get a clearer picture of what they represent.



What we see here is actually a show in decline, there is a downward trend for the first three years. The fourth year initially continued that trend but then turned it around some and so far the fifth year is marginally improving.

I just used the ratings figures from GW and the value of a ratings point to number of households has changed over the years. To make a true comparison you would need to make some adjustments.

What that chart says to me is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of the creative choices of M&M, they did their jobs as showrunners and stopped the decline and started to improve the show.

Problem is, a 1.5 back when Season 3 aired held different weight than a 1.5 as of recent. We should really be comparing viewer numbers rather than ratings points. Now anybody here would likely agree with me on that.

[Briangate78]

Numbers are open to interpretation, Brian, and saying definitively that someone's wrong... well that's a little rude, to say the least.

I've dealt with ratings before. Believe me, you can talk up any piece of crap you get. It's all in the demographic. "Oh, we're number one with 15-18 year old males who are planning to study science at uni, and whose mothers buy their underwear".

As for your "Plus 7". Um, that's only better if you had figures from previous seasons to compare it to. How do you know what the +7 figures would have been? You don't.

How do you know personally how much stock advertisers put in such figures? You don't. You only know what TPTB tell you.

Mcbarr is incorrect, how is that rude? I have seen the Season averages for the last 3 seasons when comparing apples to apples. What counts as commercial viewing is not the conversation here being discussed. When measuring the volume, or how many people are watching the show still, Live+7 is your best bet. You don't know what info I have, so lets just leave it at that, ok.

[Briangate78]

Thanks mcbarr.

If the numbers for S1-S3 are higher than S4, tell me why it doesn't make sense that the +7 ratings would be higher as well.

DVR did not have a major impact back in Season 1 and 2. Season 3 was the first season to begin the "Live + 7" measurements. When you compare Season 3 , 4 , and 5 to date Season 3 averages the lowest for total viewers.

Back in 2006 there were 9% of households with DVR, now it is 23% of households with DVR.

[RealmOfX]

Problem is, a 1.5 back when Season 3 aired held different weight than a 1.5 as of recent.

Yeah Brian, I know that's why I actually mentioned it and also said you'd have to make adjustments to make a true comparison. Comparison of ratings that is.

We should really be comparing viewer numbers rather than ratings points. Now anybody here would likely agree with me on that.

It would be great if we could compare the figures but I don't think anyone has access to a complete set for comparison.

[Briangate78]

Yeah Brian, I know that's why I actually mentioned it and also said you'd have to make adjustments to make a true comparison. Comparison of ratings that is.



It would be great if we could compare the figures but I don't think anyone has access to a complete set for comparison.

Actually, we do have a few. The Season 4 Ratings thread compares Season 3's and Season 4's ratings for the first 4 eps provided by MediaSavant. I think it is around page 33? One example, which you will see there is that No Man's Land was a 1.54 with 1.9 Million viewers, and comparing it to Adrift which got a 1.41 had 2.0 Million viewers (Both Live+7, Btw), and "The Last Man had a 1.49 with 2.1 Million viewers (before Live+7).

Also, did you see the press release for Atlantis' "Search and Rescue"? It had 2.4 Million viewers with a 1.7 HH rating, if you look at the eps for Season 3 a 1.7 may have gotten them just over 2.0 million and that's it. There are a couple of examples there in that thread.

Ratings points tend to go up and down, but it doesn't mean the viewers are going down. I learned that a household could change and the Viewers per household will go up and down on a weekly basis. I also have learned because less households got SCI FI, the Ratings point would be higher, where as now, even if the amount of households that tuned into the show stayed constant the ratings point would still fall, since the denominator(aka Total Households with SCI FI) would increase.

[Briangate78]

Ok I found it...

Through a source who has access to ratings, I can reveal the "Live + 7" Program ratings for the first four episodes of this season compared to the the first four episodes of last season:

The first number is the covg. household rating. The second is total viewers:

401: 1.41, 2,002 viewers
402: 1.27, 1,689
403: 1.25, 1,562
404: 1.21, 1,635
Avg: 1.29, 1,722

301: 1.54, 1,897 viewers
302: 1.65, 1,991
303: 1.59, 1,943
304: 1.43, 1,773
Avg: 1.55, 1,901

Note: Nielsen started measuring "Live + 7" in January 2006. The penetration of DVR's was lower in July/August of last year when 301 to 304 ran. So, you'll notice that the differences between the published Live + SD rating to the now revealed Live + 7 ratings is not as great as it is this year. However, this is as "apples to apples" as you can get to understand the total viewing of the show.

You'll note also that there is no constant conversion from a household rating to the number of persons watching. That's because the number of people watching per household is not constant. Episode 401 appeared to have a higher "viewers per household" than other episodes this season.

We know "Search and Rescue" pulled a 1.7 HH rating with 2.4 Million viewers based on the press releases.

[topaz_bean]

It's true that ratings have never been huge,certainly not compared to a show like SCC. It's a 'niche' show and, granted, the stars are not exactly part of the TV A-list. Atlantis is really in the b-movie arena of TV. However, advertisers are less interested in overall ratings than ratings within a certain demographic, and also how well a show performs compared to other shows in the same timeslot. The tone of the show can also be relevant, if advertisers feel they want to be associated with certain themes or a certain ethos, although in this area I'm not sure that Atlantis stands out quite enough from other sci-fi shows for this to be relevant. This season Atlantis has doubled its hold in the 18-49 demographic (I think that's the range, correct me if not) and has been the highest rated in this demographic on cable for this timeslot. Its achievements are modest, but not insignificant.

[Briangate78]

My sentiments exactly. There's no way in HELL a show that had that portion of the population watching would survive in any other country.

Bottom line. 2.5 million out of 300 million is not great. It's not even good. It's bad. It's worse than bad.

The cast of Atlantis could walk down the street and nobody would know who they were. They might look at Flanigan because he's "pretty", but they wouldn't know who they were.

The whole "Oh but it's on Scifi and nobody watches Scifi" can be blown out of the water by figures (not great, but higher figures) for other shows, eg, Ghost Hunters and Eureka.

You may question the quality of those shows, but bottom line, more people watch them. More people are inclined to tune in.

And Brian, unless you're a statistician who works for an advertising firm, what you think doesn't make any difference. Bottom line, the figures aren't good for someone who wants to advertise, when they could get something like Ghosthunters on the same network and get more people watching.

If I was an advertiser, I know where I'd be putting my money if I was buying time on Scifi, and it wouldn't be during SGA.

So you are saying all the shows on SCI FI and other cable networks are doing bad then? Well you obviously don't live in the U.S. Very few of them on SCI FI has a viewer average of 2.5 million viewers plus. Ghost Hunters has hovered around the 2.2 to 2.3 million mark, oh similar to Atlantis btw. You and I don't know what is good or bad only the network does. All I know is that the number of viewers are higher.

[Jumper_One]

FINALLY! Thank YOU!!!!!!

LOL you're welcome

"so-called facts"?

I said, "she's controversial"

you said that she's not.

I defined controversial.

You disputed my definition by saying that by that definition, every decision ever made is controversial.

You attempted to void my definition by questioning it.

How is a definition a "so-called" fact. I'm pretty sure a dictionary definition is about as factual as you can get... Depending of course upon what stage of development the language is in.

Keller's definitely a lot more controversial than any other regular character currently in Atlantis. however personally I think of her as a character that some people like and others don't, pro's and anti's. anyway there have been a lot of discussions and debates regarding her part in certain eps so I guess you're right, she is a controversial character

As compared to other sci-fi shows of a comparable nature.

like BSG, Eureka, ST?

Yeah! I LOVE this show!

same here

LOL, Okay, maybe not everyone!

I knew it

Approximately 74 million homes. With an average household size of 2.61, this is 193.14 million viewers. Refining the numbers, 1.3% of these watch Atlantis. I won't make the same adjustment for SCC. I'll assume everyone has access to FOX.

interesting numbers, thanks

I watch Eureka occasionally, but it's not as good as Atlantis. I consider it more of a harmless diversion myself.

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

I have read your other posts, that is what prompted mine. While I agree that you have never maintained that the show's ratings were stellar,

thank you

I find this bickering about which season's ratings were better to be a mute point. The show's ratings were, well, awful; and, in any event, the show was canceled.

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

If you LOVE Seasons 1-3, don't let any talk about ratings deter you! Simply LOVE those seasons. If you liked Season 4 & 5, don't get a false sense of pride because the ratings were improving. They had nowhere to go but up. Simply LOVE Seasons 4 & 5. If you love Seasons 1 -5, don't let the crappy ratings deter you, simply LOVE the show! If you love or hate CONTROVERSIAL characters , continue to love or hate them.

I prefer Seasons 1 - 3. I don't care what the ratings say, and no matter what, I know that the simple live ratings were higher than 4 & 5. That's a fact that cannot be disputed. Oh, other factors like DVRs and DVDs can be brought in, but in the end, the point is mute because overall, the show's ratings STANK! But it was our show, and we LOVED it, or part of it anyway. And it had nothing to do with the ratings...

I love s1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

In regard to the ratings across the years of SGA, it is better to view them in linear so you can get a clearer picture of what they represent.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/9...ratingsan5.jpg

What we see here is actually a show in decline, there is a downward trend for most of the first three years. The fourth year initially continued that trend but then turned it around some and so far the fifth year is marginally improving.

I just used the ratings figures from GW and the value of a ratings point to number of households has changed over the years. To make a true comparison you would need to make some adjustments.

What that chart says to me is that, regardless of anyone's opinion of the creative choices of M&M, they did their jobs as showrunners and stopped the decline and started to improve the show.

I completely agree with the bolded parts. also here's another graph for s3, 4 and 5

Spoiler:

My sentiments exactly. There's no way in HELL a show that had that portion of the population watching would survive in any other country.

Bottom line. 2.5 million out of 300 million is not great. It's not even good. It's bad. It's worse than bad.

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

The cast of Atlantis could walk down the street and nobody would know who they were. They might look at Flanigan because he's "pretty", but they wouldn't know who they were.

yeah so?

[Ncc-72452]

It's true that ratings have never been huge,certainly not compared to a show like SCC. It's a 'niche' show and, granted, the stars are not exactly part of the TV A-list. Atlantis is really in the b-movie arena of TV. However, advertisers are less interested in overall ratings than ratings within a certain demographic, and also how well a show performs compared to other shows in the same timeslot. The tone of the show can also be relevant, if advertisers feel they want to be associated with certain themes or a certain ethos, although in this area I'm not sure that Atlantis stands out quite enough from other sci-fi shows for this to be relevant. This season Atlantis has doubled its hold in the 18-49 demographic (I think that's the range, correct me if not) and has been the highest rated in this demographic on cable for this timeslot. Its achievements are modest, but not insignificant.

I had to LOL at your calling Atlantis a "b-movie" in the "arena of TV." I also had not considered the demographic aspect, which is a good point. I would like to point out that I was not attempting to belittle the show, just provide some "global" prospective.

[Reiko]

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

Don't forget to factor in other countries. Many Europeans I know have tuned out like myself. I suppose they have higher standards for superior entertainment, you can argue. lol.