'Cloverdale' (205) General Discussion

[Kaiphantom]

SGU is much more of a character driven show. SG-1 and Atlantis were much more action driven shows. Since the show’s inception there has been a segment of the Stargate viewer ship that has been lamenting that SGU should be more like the prior two.

Before we go on, let me say that I agree with you. And actually, Air, Darkness, and Light continue to be my favorite episodes. The rest is fairly good, and I don't mind that it's character driven. At least, I'm not hating on it because it's different. Rather, my criticisms are based in the fact that they had a decently good start, combing character development with the main plot, but these side diversions are hurting it.

Another poster attempted to “prove” using Nielsen statistics that Cloverdale was a bad episode. I disagree and I don’t think their statistics support their conclusions. Cloverdale’s rating was only 15% less than the highest of this season and was 8% above the average episode rating. I certainly am not an expert on Nielsen ratings but I do know that there can be a host of factors that can determine and affect an individual episode’s rating especially when the differences between them are relatively small. I don’t think the ratings of the five episodes quoted are significantly statistically different to warrant the conclusion that Cloverdale is widely viewed as a poor episode.

Bolding for the important part. Look, you are welcome to think Nielsen ratings are crap or whatever. I would happen to agree, partially (they only measure TV). But they are damn important for networks, because that influences what kind of money they can get for showing ads. If a show's rating drops, it brings in less money. It's a bit more complex than that, but not by much. I'd wager that SGU would have to pull in an average of 1.3 at least, to avoid being canceled, but much of it is executive decision, too (and execs love killing shows that seem to be underperforming).

And regardless of what we think, the ratings are sampling of the general population, which means there is truth to them. On average, it's what Americans are watching. Which means that, on average, considerably less people watched the last two episodes. And that means that, on average, the people tuning in for SGU, didn't like what they saw.

My recommendation has been that, even if you feel Cloverdale was an excellent episode, it should have been one that aired in the back half. You put episodes up front that your viewers want to see, so that ratings are high enough to warrant another season.

For some reason, considering that it's been Rush's tampering with Destiny that's led to most of the crap that's befallen the crew since the LA incursion, I think that he's responsible for them being on that planet in the first place. It wasn't stated in the episode, but it's what I think happened.

It's been a really short time since the LA incursion, and during that time, he saved 80+ people. Even if you count Telford and Riley against him, you're looking at 80+ saved compared to 2 lost(and I'm deliberately ignoring the people he saved before that). Yeah, really horrible numbers there. Clearly, not someone you want with you on the ship. I suppose you'd rather prefer Young, who nearly got 80+ people killed.

[Misfits]

It actually wouldn't be the only time, but I actually agree with you for once. I wonder how many people will go, "Hmm, well, if it wasn't for Rush, someone would have died." If it wasn't for Rush, people would have died and been stranded on the planet in Incursion, and that isn't even the first time he's helped saved lives. Reminds me of an old poster that had a picture of a puppy on it: "When I do good, no one remembers. When I do bad, no one forgets."

I never said Rush didn't save people's lives before. I said it was the only time his scheme saved a life. There is a difference.

Um, Nielsen ratings are used because they aren't relative; they are used a direct comparison. And you sound a lot like JM: "Well, um, yeah, ratings are lower... but but but! They aren't counting downloads, yeah!" Always an excuse, when he didn't need the download excuse before when ratings were high. Also, ratings determine ad revenue. Even if you feel they are relative, that affects the bottom line over at Syfy, for how much they can charge for commercials.

What I meant was that there are many variables.
Also, the shows currently airing, with their numbers would have been canceled in a nanosecond 10 years ago.
Even gold staple shows, like Oscars, Super Bowl, etc... have lower numbers.

Caprica was just canceled. It's Syfy, dude. At the least, they can replace things with wrestling until they find some other syfy show.

To replace Caprica with Wrestling would be inane. Maybe Caprica was canceled to save SGU, who knows.

[Misfits]

For some reason, considering that it's been Rush's tampering with Destiny that's led to most of the crap that's befallen the crew since the LA incursion, I think that he's responsible for them being on that planet in the first place. It wasn't stated in the episode, but it's what I think happened.

Unfortunately, those are the details we do not know.
However, the fact that they were on a gated planet, with another locked out planet within range, would suggest that Destiny is finally back in the corridor of planets.
This would suggest that Rush wasn't the one responsible for the Destiny stop.

[Misfits]

It's been a really short time since the LA incursion, and during that time, he saved 80+ people. Even if you count Telford and Riley against him, you're looking at 80+ saved compared to 2 lost(and I'm deliberately ignoring the people he saved before that). Yeah, really horrible numbers there. Clearly, not someone you want with you on the ship. I suppose you'd rather prefer Young, who nearly got 80+ people killed.

Well, if you're going to be looking at cold numbers, Young got no one killed at Icarus Base, by his decisions. Whereas, Rush, by dialing the 9th chevron address, has gotten 8-9 people marooned in 'Faith' Planet, 80+ people stranded on Destiny, and numerous people killed so far, starting with Senator Armstrong and Sgt. Riley.
Let's seem that's more than 1 versus 0. Young wins. Ha!

[Kaiphantom]

What I meant was that there are many variables.
Also, the shows currently airing, with their numbers would have been canceled in a nanosecond 10 years ago.
Even gold staple shows, like Oscars, Super Bowl, etc... have lower numbers.

I'd actually agree. There are a ton of variables, and I don't feel Nielsen ratings are very accurate for determining how many people are watching. But they are used for advertising revenue, and thus which shows ultimately get axed. Until that changes, the ratings are important for ensuring a show continues to air. I personally believe the Cable TV model needs to change. Google makes a living merely with ads, and provides ton of great FREE stuff.

To replace Caprica with Wrestling would be inane. Maybe Caprica was canceled to save SGU, who knows.

To show wrestling on Syfy would be inane, but they've done it before.

Well, if you're going to be looking at cold numbers, Young got no one killed at Icarus Base, by his decisions. Whereas, Rush, by dialing the 9th chevron address, has gotten 8-9 people marooned in 'Faith' Planet, 80+ people stranded on Destiny, and numerous people killed so far, starting with Senator Armstrong and Sgt. Riley.
Let's seem that's more than 1 versus 0. Young wins. Ha!

The people stranded on the Faith planet were there by their own decision, and the senator gave up his own life; by Rush's own words, he wouldn't have picked Armstrong. And yes, 80+ stranded on Destiny, but they are alive. Since people had to get stranded there to have a show in the first place, the question only needs to address the people after that point.

Of course, since we're looking to see SGU canceled soon, perhaps they should have just avoided dialing the 9th Chevron in the first place, heh.

[Misfits]

The people stranded on the Faith planet were there by their own decision, and the senator gave up his own life; by Rush's own words, he wouldn't have picked Armstrong. And yes, 80+ stranded on Destiny, but they are alive. Since people had to get stranded there to have a show in the first place, the question only needs to address the people after that point.

Of course, since we're looking to see SGU canceled soon, perhaps they should have just avoided dialing the 9th Chevron in the first place, heh.

All the people stranded or dead would not have been there to make such choices IF Rush hadn't dialed the 9th chevron address.

You're counting after the fact, I start my count before the fact. If you're going to look at cold numbers, let's start before the fact, unless you specifically acknowledge that you're counting after the fact.

[Kaiphantom]

All the people stranded or dead would not have been there to make such choices IF Rush hadn't dialed the 9th chevron address.

You're counting after the fact, I start my count before the fact. If you're going to look at cold numbers, let's start before the fact, unless you specifically acknowledge that you're counting after the fact.

Like I said, they needed to end up on the ship somehow or we wouldn't have a show; that's why I don't put as much emphasis on that. And if you believe that things happen for a reason, or that fate somehow plays a role, then those people were destined to end up there. Could very well play into Destiny's mission, something about going back in time, or to the beginning of time. And thus, much like Weir traveled back to the Ancients so that modifications to Atlantis could be made to make it float to the surface, these people will learn that they went back in time before, and were the cause of Destiny launching in the first place.

[Misfits]

Like I said, they needed to end up on the ship somehow or we wouldn't have a show; that's why I don't put as much emphasis on that. And if you believe that things happen for a reason, or that fate somehow plays a role, then those people were destined to end up there. Could very well play into Destiny's mission, something about going back in time, or to the beginning of time. And thus, much like Weir traveled back to the Ancients so that modifications to Atlantis could be made to make it float to the surface, these people will learn that they went back in time before, and were the cause of Destiny launching in the first place.

Well, based on what we do know. unless more is revealed later on, Rush's decision to dial the 9th chevron address is the reason why anyone has to make any of these decisions, choices, or dies.
So, start counting from before that fact.

[Blackhole]

Before we go on, let me say that I agree with you. And actually, Air, Darkness, and Light continue to be my favorite episodes. The rest is fairly good, and I don't mind that it's character driven. At least, I'm not hating on it because it's different. Rather, my criticisms are based in the fact that they had a decently good start, combing character development with the main plot, but these side diversions are hurting it.

You are welcome not to like Cloverdale. But suggesting it was a poor unpopular episode and hurt the series is only your opinion and is unsupported.

Bolding for the important part. Look, you are welcome to think Nielsen ratings are crap or whatever. I would happen to agree, partially (they only measure TV). But they are damn important for networks, because that influences what kind of money they can get for showing ads. If a show's rating drops, it brings in less money. It's a bit more complex than that, but not by much. I'd wager that SGU would have to pull in an average of 1.3 at least, to avoid being canceled, but much of it is executive decision, too (and execs love killing shows that seem to be underperforming).

And regardless of what we think, the ratings are sampling of the general population, which means there is truth to them. On average, it's what Americans are watching. Which means that, on average, considerably less people watched the last two episodes. And that means that, on average, the people tuning in for SGU, didn't like what they saw.

As I and others have said repeatedly you need to actually read the posts. And it would be very nice if you actually responded to the actual point that the posters actually made. Of course if you did then you would actually have to refute the actual arguments that the posters were actually making.

Where do I say or infer that the Nielsen ratings are crap or unimportant to the network or are not samplings of the general population?

The point I clearly made was the ratings of the five episodes quoted are not significantly statistically different to warrant the conclusion that Cloverdale is widely viewed as a poor episode.

The only conclusion one can draw from the ratings is that episodes four and five didn't do as well as the first three episodes. Which isn't surprising as the first episode, Intervention (Part 3) was the season opener, the second episode, Aftermath featured a huge plot development - Rush uncovering the command code which gave him sole control of Destiny, and the third episode, Awakening had another huge plot development - the discovery of an Ancient Seeder Ship.

The only conclusion one can draw about episode five, Cloverdale is that is did better than episode four, Pathogen. Nowhere in the rating statistics is any indication that Cloverdale is widely viewed as a poor episode and shouldn't have been aired when it was. That assertion is only your opinion and an unsupported one at that.

My recommendation has been that, even if you feel Cloverdale was an excellent episode, it should have been one that aired in the back half. You put episodes up front that your viewers want to see, so that ratings are high enough to warrant another season.

Again you have no evidence to suggest that Cloverdale wasn't an episode that viewers didn't want to see and as such your view that it was not in the proper place in the broadcast order is only your opinion and is unsupported.

[Kaiphantom]

You are welcome not to like Cloverdale. But suggesting it was bad episode and hurt the series is only your opinion and unsupported.

You know, it would be nice if you would just address the points, but that would require you to actually refute arguments. I'm going to say it again, and will repeat it often: low ratings hurt shows. This is a fact. This is why Caprica was canceled. This is why many shows in the past have been canceled (though not the sole reason).

Pathogen and Cloverdale pulled in very low numbers.

By extension of logic, then, Pathogen and Cloverdale have hurt the series chances of being renewed.

Do I need to break it down more simply? Any particular part leaving you confused still?

Let me restate for you: I didn't say it was bad, per se. I even granted, for the sake of argument, that it was great in an intellectual way. I merely stated it was bad because that is not the type of episode most people want to see, and ratings back that up. Let me repeat that in a slightly different way: My answer is supporting by actual evidence, the ratings themselves. Whereas you have no counter-evidence. I'm even trying to be nice by granting you unsupported points!

Where do I say or infer that the Nielsen ratings are crap or unimportant to the network or are not samplings of the general population?

The point I clearly made was the ratings of the five episodes quoted are not significantly statistically different to warrant the conclusion that Cloverdale is widely viewed as a poor episode.

You said it in that very line there; by disregarding the ratings, you are saying they are crap. And while I agree they aren't the best, they are all we have right now and they are VERY important to a network because it affects their monetary intake.

But this also part of your flawed logic; you are trying to limit it to just five episodes, when the truth is it has to be compared to 300+ episodes. Or, if you prefer, just the slew of SG-1 and Atlantis episodes that aired on Syfy(so maybe 200-ish episodes?). In that vein, Pathogen is the lowest ever in the SG franchise, ratings-wise, and Cloverdale barely beats that. True, like and dislike are subjective things; but in a pure analytical way that the network execs will use, Cloverdale is a poor episode. That's the only objective standard we can currently look at.

In fact, as I go back over the SG-1 and Atlantis episodes, I see a lot of 2-3 rated episodes, occasionally dipping down to 1.5. In that light, SGU season 1 was carrying on the torch fairly well initially, but slowly went down. Incursion part 1 was the lowest at 1.178, so to put it in focus, Pathogen and Cloverdale were lower than that! Here's your reference:

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2010/0...atings-report/

The only conclusion one can draw from the ratings is that episodes four and five didn't do as well as the first three episodes. Which isn't surprising as the first episode, Intervention (Part 3) was the season opener, the second episode, Aftermath featured a huge plot development - Rush uncovering the command code which gave him sole control of Destiny, and the third episode, Awakening had another huge plot development - the discovery of an Ancient Seeder Ship.

And you just described why those episodes were good, and by contrast, exactly why Pathogen and Cloverdale were bad. Thank you. If you still don't see why, I can attempt to clarify and explain.

Again you have no evidence to suggest that Cloverdale wasn't an episode that viewers didn't want to see and as such your view that it was not in the proper place in the broadcast order is only your opinion and is unsupported.

Yeah, silly me. I assumed that, if they wanted to see it, they would have tuned in. If only we had some kind of system where we could sample the population in various ways to find out what they are watching. And apply some, I dunno, some kind of "rating" system to it. But that's crazy talk! Because then we could have opinions actually supported by evidence. Though I agree, if the evidence goes against you, I can see why you would want to cast doubt on it or deny it entirely.

[Blackhole]

You know, it would be nice if you would just address the points, but that would require you to actually refute arguments. I'm going to say it again, and will repeat it often: low ratings hurt shows. This is a fact. This is why Caprica was canceled. This is why many shows in the past have been canceled (though not the sole reason).

Pathogen and Cloverdale pulled in very low numbers.

By extension of logic, then, Pathogen and Cloverdale have hurt the series chances of being renewed.

Do I need to break it down more simply? Any particular part leaving you confused still?

Let me restate for you: I didn't say it was bad, per se. I even granted, for the sake of argument, that it was great in an intellectual way. I merely stated it was bad because that is not the type of episode most people want to see, and ratings back that up. Let me repeat that in a slightly different way: My answer is supporting by actual evidence, the ratings themselves. Whereas you have no counter-evidence. I'm even trying to be nice by granting you unsupported points!

You said it in that very line there; by disregarding the ratings, you are saying they are crap. And while I agree they aren't the best, they are all we have right now and they are VERY important to a network because it affects their monetary intake.

But this also part of your flawed logic; you are trying to limit it to just five episodes, when the truth is it has to be compared to 300+ episodes. Or, if you prefer, just the slew of SG-1 and Atlantis episodes that aired on Syfy(so maybe 200-ish episodes?). In that vein, Pathogen is the lowest ever in the SG franchise, ratings-wise, and Cloverdale barely beats that. True, like and dislike are subjective things; but in a pure analytical way that the network execs will use, Cloverdale is a poor episode. That's the only objective standard we can currently look at.

In fact, as I go back over the SG-1 and Atlantis episodes, I see a lot of 2-3 rated episodes, occasionally dipping down to 1.5. In that light, SGU season 1 was carrying on the torch fairly well initially, but slowly went down. Incursion part 1 was the lowest at 1.178, so to put it in focus, Pathogen and Cloverdale were lower than that! Here's your reference:

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2010/0...atings-report/

And you just described why those episodes were good, and by contrast, exactly why Pathogen and Cloverdale were bad. Thank you. If you still don't see why, I can attempt to clarify and explain.

Yeah, silly me. I assumed that, if they wanted to see it, they would have tuned in. If only we had some kind of system where we could sample the population in various ways to find out what they are watching. And apply some, I dunno, some kind of "rating" system to it. But that's crazy talk! Because then we could have opinions actually supported by evidence. Though I agree, if the evidence goes against you, I can see why you would want to cast doubt on it or deny it entirely.

I was under the impression you meant to single out Cloverdale's dream type episode as a poor one specifically. If however you are suggesting that Cloverdale, Pathogen and the current season of SGU unfortunately, has ratings low enough to put the series in jeopardy of early cancellation then you may be right. I don't know enough on how the Syfy network works to even speculate.

[Kaiphantom]

I was under the impression you meant to single out Cloverdale's dream type episode as a poor one specifically. If however you are suggesting that Cloverdale, Pathogen and the current season of SGU unfortunately, has ratings low enough to put the series in jeopardy of early cancellation then you may be right. I don't know enough on how the Syfy network works to even speculate.

Poor in the sense of placement at the very least, but also poor in the sense of giving the viewers "B" when they wanted "A".

[Blackhole]

Poor in the sense of placement at the very least, but also poor in the sense of giving the viewers "B" when they wanted "A".

The first half of season one averaged 1.99 million viewers. The average of the values you posted for season two so far is 1.09 million. This is only 55% of season one's values. If I am understanding the ratings data it seems that all of season two in terms of viewer ship have been dismal. It is true that Pathogen and Cloverdale are the least but the first three episodes aren't appreciably better. The second season’s audience has declined to nearly half of what it was last season. Unfortunately, the ratings picture for SGU does not appear to be promising.

[nx01a]

Anybody else notice that Greer left the dialing device behind?

[maylet]

I liked this episode, I like that this season is showing more on Chloe and what those aliens did to her, I wonder if we may see a really dark side of her soon.

The episode was good, showing both the reality and the dream of Scott. It was really sweet seeing him get married to Chloe until he sees her and see the half alien face, that was really cool.

I don't really have much to say about the episode, it was good and I like it.

I just want to see and know more about what is happening with Chloe. It's the first time so far this season that I don't hate Rush, LOL