Now that Season 9 is over, has your opinion changed?

[Deejay435]

The thing about ratings is they are statistics and thus can be made to read like anything.

Personally in the last few years more so then ever, the idea that the Nelsons are a accurate representation of the viewing public is becoming more flawed.

With the advent of TiVo and such, there is now such as wider scope that has to be looked at, and the industry has to start realising they ahve to find another and better way to try and get a sampling.

It also depends on what 'ratings' you're looking at. Camelot was not the fifth highest rated episode of SG1 ever-if you're looking at Nielson ratings. It only got a 1.9. The season finales of seasons 7 and 8 did better, as did Avalon 1 and 2. Season Eight averaged a 2.1 rating for it's episodes, and Season Eight's premire episodes, New Order 1 and 2, got a 2.4. Season seven episodes like Evolution, Fallout, and Death Knell all got between 1.9 and 2.2. I haven't looked back farther than the second half of season 7.

So no, in Nielson ratings-which is what the tptb gauge success on-Camelot was not the fifth highest rated episode of SG1 ever.

I believe that the 'ratings' being cited in the post above were Gateworld viewer polls. These are not indicative of a wider viewing audience, and can be voted on more than once.

[The Signal]

Question.... if Camelot was rated the 6th highest Stargate Episode of the entire 9 year run, then despite a "matter of opinion" how can show the death of the show? To me it's quite the opposite.

It felt cheap, the action was next to non existant except for ten minutes at the end which was backed up by music that was just a quick way to get some sympathy for the characters which could have been obtained by decent writing, but no TPTB take the easy option to get it. The ratings thing has been explained below. As for the death of the show, if they have this "take the easy route" idea now, then that will run into S10 and beyond.

[DEM]

I believe that the 'ratings' being cited in the post above were Gateworld viewer polls. These are not indicative of a wider viewing audience, and can be voted on more than once.

I'm going to contest your first point, Deej, purely on technical grounds. Assuming that you meant 'indicative' to mean 'representative': We cannot know one way or the other without further research. Large sample size and random sampling are factors that may enhance representativeness, but they by no means assure it, and (furthermore) it is possible to acheive representativeness 'by chance'.

/doffs Instructor Cap. *deep breath*

However, I do agree with your general point that something is severely flawed with the poll for Camelot. It's improbable to the point of fantastical that that many more people would vote in Camelot's poll than: a) the poll of the week prior, b) the poll for the same week of Atlantis, and c) every other SG-1 finale.

Bluntly: Don't believe it for a second.

(And to respond to an idea I've seen repeatedly: The increase in Gateworld Forum members that same week has nothing to do with the poll. One can vote in the general GW polls without being a Forum member and, furthermore, people who had been Forum guests before the airing of Camelot were essentially forced to become members that week because of some technical server somethingsomething.)

[Deevil]

Hey, I had every one of my monkey's vote on that poll so it is very concievable!!!

[OriKiller]

Season 9 came and went... a lot of forum peeps hated the changed. They missed Jack. They thought the writing was substandard. They didn't like the storylines.

However, Season 9 is now over, and the Ori invasion of the galaxy has begun. Did you like the ending? Did you like the build-up? Were the last 10 episodes better then the first 10?

Have you gotten used to Mitchell and the new "feel" or do you think you'll need another season to get used to it? Or do you still firmly believe that you won't get used to it?

Basically - post away - has your opinion of season 9 changed?

The last ten were better than the first ten, but only marginally so. I was pretty excited at the beginning of this season. We were getting a new lead actor, and some other quality players to fill out the cast. I knew it was going to be a challenge to go on without RDA, but I felt that Browder was a good guy to cast in the lead and that TPTB could build on his talents. Avalon part 1 was not bad, and the first few scenes of part 2 were even better. But after that it plunged downhill and stayed there. The latter scenes of Avalon part two were lame and Origin was simply awful. In my opinion, Origin is the low point of the series, and that's saying something when you consider we've seen clunkers like The First Ones and Frozen. The rest of the season continued the slow decline with only a few decent episodes along the way (Collateral Damage, Arthur's Mantle). Crusade was a total snooze-fest. Camelot had some nice scenes, but it was obviously going to be a set-up for next season. You could see that ending coming a mile away. In short, my opinion changed immediately as soon as I saw the second and third episodes. I kept hoping for the series to recover, but it never did.

I still hold out hope that they can right the ship in the next season. By the looks of the ratings, they better do it quickly or they might find themselves looking at cancellation. Those of you who are trying to write off the bad ratings are fooling yourselves. Advertisers pay attention to those things, and no amount of justifying is going to keep them paying for the show. I hope it doesn't end this way. SG-1 has been a great show for so long it would be a shame to see it put out to pasture because the writers didn't know what to do with a talented young lead and a cast of excellent veterans. Here's hoping things improve dramatically (no pun intended) in the summer.

[PG15]

Look, it's useless to use ratings to justify your arguments since:

1. the ratings for all 3 Scifi Friday shows dropped
2. the Olympics

The thing is, there are many factors controlling TV ratings, and quality is just one of them.

[OriKiller]

Look, it's useless to use ratings to justify your arguments since:

1. the ratings for all 3 Scifi Friday shows dropped
2. the Olympics

The thing is, there are many factors controlling TV ratings, and quality is just one of them.

1. SG-1 is the lead-in show and it is most likely dragging the others down. After all, many SG-1 fans will watch Atlantis out of loyalty, and some will even stick around for BSG. Heck, I've watched BSG a few times this season even though I hate the show just because it was on right after the ones I liked. Call it laziness if you like, but if I have nothing else to do I will sometimes stick around out of habit. My guess is that many others do the same, and that's how successful "same night" line-ups are built. SG-1's problems are affecting the other shows.
2. The Olympics were only on for a couple of weeks. What about the rest of the season? That's a pretty lame excuse. Like I said, the advertisers are not going to accept that.

[ParadoxRealities]

i have no personal comment on this, but i've heard it in several places: is it true that TPTB have talked (at some point) about bad/not so good/being less than happy with ratings? if so, in what context? thanks in advance for info.
~PR

[PG15]

1. SG-1 is the lead-in show and it is most likely dragging the others down. After all, many SG-1 fans will watch Atlantis out of loyalty, and some will even stick around for BSG. Heck, I've watched BSG a few times this season even though I hate the show just because it was on right after the ones I liked. Call it laziness if you like, but if I have nothing else to do I will sometimes stick around out of habit. My guess is that many others do the same, and that's how successful "same night" line-ups are built. SG-1's problems are affecting the other shows.

Or one can argue that there is stiffer competition on the networks on Fridays these days.

Like I said, it can be argued either way, and that's why ratings info can't really be used as evidence.

2. The Olympics were only on for a couple of weeks. What about the rest of the season? That's a pretty lame excuse. Like I said, the advertisers are not going to accept that.

Well, the really low ratings (ie. 1.5) happened with the Olympics in town or after the midseason break, so I don't know what to tell you. The first half averaged around 1.97 or 2 or something. Yes it's true that the ratings on average is lower than in season 8 (but on par with Season 7, at least the first half), but the reason could be many things. It could be that the show was bad, or because those that watched because of RDA left.

We don't know the real reason.

[TheCaptain]

Yes, my opinion of Season 9 has truly changed. I was pretty damn angry and disappointed, for one thing, about how they ended things with Jack O'Neill. Where the hell did he go? Why didnt they reveal to us as viewers that he was moving on up, that he was retiring/promoted out of the SGC? WHATEVER!

Then Daniel Jackson's disappointment at being screwed out of his trip to Atlantis - a disappointment I really did feel, as a viewer and a supporter of the DJ character - and the introduction of this new threat, the Ori. I really didnt like these episodes, at first.

The first few without Jack because he was gone from the show, and SC being missing because of AT's baby, caused me to seriously dislike the new season's first shows as well - but after seeing them all a couple of times, I've come to appreciate them for what they were, and to enjoy them for the insight they provided into this new threat. It still irked me that JO was, IMHO, not given a sendoff deserving of such a vital character, but hey supposedly we might just get that rectified!

As S9 continued on, and we began to get more of a taste of the Ori, the Priors, their devout followers, and their modus operandi against the 'unbelievers', I began to get into the season more and more, and as the new characters were given more of a chance to develop and the new story arc opened up a little bit the appreciation only grew.

It was all building up to the big finale in Camelot, and I was left feeling by the end of the season that we had a real climactic show on our hands again!

It's not quite the same show as Stargate s1-8 - I think it could even be argued that this is an evolution, or a different show altogether. But it's still got the core elements, TPTB try their best to change but stay true to their fans and their roots, and overall it's our choice to support them, and we do so they keep making a great show!

And I hope they keep up the great work in this historic 10th season!

Capt

[OriKiller]

Or one can argue that there is stiffer competition on the networks on Fridays these days.

Like I said, it can be argued either way, and that's why ratings info can't really be used as evidence.

All of these rationalizations will not help you if the show gets cancelled. I can assure you if that happens, the low ratings will be cited. That is what happened with Farscape and it will be the same for SG-1 if they don't turn it around.

Well, the really low ratings (ie. 1.5) happened with the Olympics in town or after the midseason break, so I don't know what to tell you.

The Olympic Opening Ceremonies were televised on 2/10 and the Closing Ceremonies on 2/26. There was no coverage either before or after those dates. So the only episodes affected were Off the Grid, The Scourge, and Arthur's Mantle. Here are the ratings for the episodes after the break and just prior to the Olympic coverage:
Fourth Horseman, part II = 1.9
Collateral Damage = 1.7
Ripple Effect = 1.8
Stronghold = 1.8
Ethon = 1.5 (season low)

Here are the ratings for the episodes that aired during the Olympic coverage:
Off the Grid = 1.6
The Scourge = 1.6
Arthur's Mantle = 1.7

Here are the ratings for the episodes that aired after the Olympic coverage:
Crusade = 1.8
Camelot = 1.9

As you can see, the Olympic coverage hardly explains the low ratings. The show never rose above the 2.0 threshold after the break. Last year SG-1 had excellent ratings after the break and the other two Friday series benefitted from it, scoring high ratings of their own.

Look, I'm not trying to say it's all doom and gloom. I am very hopeful that they will turn it around next year and get the ratings back where they should be. But you can't just write this stuff off. Something is wrong, and TPTB need to figure out what it is. Let's hope they've already done that and made some changes that will boost the quality for season 10.

[ShardsofGlass]

OriKiller,

How would you explain the low ratings for both SGA and BSG? What would explain the fact that all three of Scifi's Friday night shows went down in the ratings approximately the same amount?

[OriKiller]

OriKiller,

How would you explain the low ratings for both SGA and BSG? What would explain the fact that all three of Scifi's Friday night shows went down in the ratings approximately the same amount?

As I mentioned in a previous post:

1. SG-1 is the lead-in show and it is most likely dragging the others down. After all, many SG-1 fans will watch Atlantis out of loyalty, and some will even stick around for BSG. Heck, I've watched BSG a few times this season even though I hate the show just because it was on right after the ones I liked. Call it laziness if you like, but if I have nothing else to do I will sometimes stick around out of habit. My guess is that many others do the same, and that's how successful "same night" line-ups are built. SG-1's problems are affecting the other shows.

To be honest, I think BSG stinks and so in my opinion the 17% drop in the ratings makes sense. As for Atlantis, I still think it is tied in with SG-1 which is dragging it down.

[DEM]

OriKiller is absolutely right that lead-in or inheritance effects are significant predictors of program ratings. This relationship has been well-known in the television industry for several decades. Here is a relevant research article:

McDowell, W., Dick, S. (2004). Has Lead-in Lost its Punch? An Analysis of Prime Time Inheritance Effects: Comparing 1992 with 2002. International Journal of Media Management. http://www.mediajournal.org/modules/...diajournal-151, [04/10/2006]

ABSTRACT: Recognizing the recent dramatic increase in the number of channels available to the typical American household coinciding with an equally dramatic decrease in audience ratings for the major broadcast networks, there was reason to hypothesize that, in recent years, lead-in or inheritance effects have diminished. However, an analysis of prime time ratings comparing 1992 with 2002 for ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox showed no support for this notion, suggesting that, despite the recent upheavals in the television industry, lead-in has not lost its punch.

Television programmers have long been aware of the capacity of a program to "inherit" sizable ratings from the program scheduled immediately before it. Although intervening variables, such as program genre, lead-out, and daypart, have been shown to have some minor influence on this phenomenon, by far the most powerful predictor of program ratings has been the mere size of a program’s lead-in audience. (p. 285)

Similarly, we propose that a vast menu of TV channel options does not produce substantial fragmentation in viewing. Audiences may "surf", "graze" or "zap" among many channels but ultimately, they migrate back to a familiar set of a dozen or so well-used channels. In conclusion, the phenomenon known as inheritance effects appears to remain a potent force in contemporary multichannel television and deserves continued attention and research. (p. 291)

[ShardsofGlass]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't take into account other variables, such as the success the major networks have been having with their programming on Friday nights. Ignoring factors like that, as well as the Olympics, doesn't lend credibility to any other theories about why the ratings were lower in the second half of the season for all three shows.