'New York' Comes Out On Top, But Ratings Down

[CSI Files]

The third episode of CSI: New York’s sixth season, “LAT 40° 47′ N/Long 73° 58′W”, won the 10:00pm timeslot on Wednesday, October 7, but ratings were down from a week ago. “Lat/Long” pulled in 11.96 million viewers and a 2.9 rating/8 share in the important 18-49 demographic. ABC and NBC shared second place. The Jay [...]

More...

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

The way they completely f*cked up the timelines in this episode I wouldn't be surprised if the ratings continue to drop.

 

[Top41]

Not that it didn't bother me too... but I kind of doubt the average viewer is going to be paying as much attention to continuity/the timeline as fans here are. I don't really see that affecting the ratings. Slow stories are going to be more problematic.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

Not that it didn't bother me too... but I kind of doubt the average viewer is going to be paying as much attention to continuity/the timeline as fans here are. I don't really see that affecting the ratings. Slow stories are going to be more problematic.

That's very true. I'm just really PO'ed about the time line thing (in case you couldn't tell.) :shifty:

 

[Ajbuckly]

Not that it didn't bother me too... but I kind of doubt the average viewer is going to be paying as much attention to continuity/the timeline as fans here are. I don't really see that affecting the ratings. Slow stories are going to be more problematic.

Well I know this is not the tread to do so...but I apreciate your views on why slow stories are problematic as the Writers pov and avarage viewers POV? We can´t be bother with the deavling or .....

 

[Top41]

^I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. What I meant is that for the average viewer--people who don't come to message boards to talk about the show, which are the majority of the viewers out there--the fact that the stories have been somewhat slow would probably be more of a problem than timeline issues.

 

[Ajbuckly]

^I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. What I meant is that for the average viewer--people who don't come to message boards to talk about the show, which are the majority of the viewers out there--the fact that the stories have been somewhat slow would probably be more of a problem than timeline issues.

Oh sorry ...I will try again.....We tune into show to be entertained IMO. So slow and to preditable build-ups and insuffecient pay-off ruins a show for me. But from a writers pov. you need diversity and perhaps run out of ideas. Who knows. So using different build-ups and so forth happens.

I was looking for your opinion on slow storylines. Reason for happening and viewers reaction. Oh and in your opinion should a show surprise and do odd storylines and buildt-ups once in a while . Or play safe and ruotine(?): The conclusion of murder being twisted as allways but the road to get there samo - samo

 

[Top41]

Oh sorry ...I will try again.....We tune into show to be entertained IMO. So slow and to preditable build-ups and insuffecient pay-off ruins a show for me. But from a writers pov. you need diversity and perhaps run out of ideas. Who knows. So using different build-ups and so forth happens.

I was looking for your opinion on slow storylines. Reason for happening and viewers reaction. Oh and in your opinion should a show surprise and do odd storylines and buildt-ups once in a while . Or play safe and ruotine(?): The conclusion of murder being twisted as allways but the road to get there samo - samo

I think build up is a good thing, but it should still be exciting and feel fresh. It's a challenge, for sure, especially after a show has been going for five seasons--or seven or nine, in the case of the other two CSI shows. I'm sure there's pressure to try new things--after all, the writers want to keep the show feeling fresh. Some experiments work, others don't. And of course, different viewers have different tastes--what works for one viewer might not work for another.

They definitely can't and shouldn't play it safe, but a lot of what we've seen so far this season feels a bit safe--the second episode saw a killer with a vendetta going up against Mac, which we've seen before. Here we've got a deranged serial killer--also something we've seen before. At the end of the day, after five, seven, nine years on the air... people want to see character-driven stories as much as they want inventive mysteries. With so many procedurals on the air, the characters are ultimately what distinguish each of the shows, and what inspire loyal fans.

All just my two cents. But at the end of the day, shows need a combination of good characters stories and compelling plots to thrive.

 

[Ajbuckly]

Oh sorry ...I will try again.....We tune into show to be entertained IMO. So slow and to preditable build-ups and insuffecient pay-off ruins a show for me. But from a writers pov. you need diversity and perhaps run out of ideas. Who knows. So using different build-ups and so forth happens.

I was looking for your opinion on slow storylines. Reason for happening and viewers reaction. Oh and in your opinion should a show surprise and do odd storylines and buildt-ups once in a while . Or play safe and ruotine(?): The conclusion of murder being twisted as allways but the road to get there samo - samo

I think build up is a good thing, but it should still be exciting and feel fresh. It's a challenge, for sure, especially after a show has been going for five seasons--or seven or nine, in the case of the other two CSI shows. I'm sure there's pressure to try new things--after all, the writers want to keep the show feeling fresh. Some experiments work, others don't. And of course, different viewers have different tastes--what works for one viewer might not work for another.

They definitely can't and shouldn't play it safe, but a lot of what we've seen so far this season feels a bit safe--the second episode saw a killer with a vendetta going up against Mac, which we've seen before. Here we've got a deranged serial killer--also something we've seen before. At the end of the day, after five, seven, nine years on the air... people want to see character-driven stories as much as they want inventive mysteries. With so many procedurals on the air, the characters are ultimately what distinguish each of the shows, and what inspire loyal fans.

All just my two cents. But at the end of the day, shows need a combination of good characters stories and compelling plots to thrive.[/QUOTE]


Great point --hopefully You will let me quote that sometime-----
But as franchise....are they betting on the loyal viewers or the avarage ones.....Let´s say: Stella dyeing her hair blond or sleeping with Adam.
You would have a part of fan base going - "she would never do that. That is so out of character" and perhaps from an avarage viewer pov.- "Wow- didn´t see that comming....Wow they did go there". Or as per. this debat... correct timelines not important in favor of working storyline.
And per. this debat....having show interchanging between "easy" murdermystery build -up vs. more focus on characerbehaviour? Using a super murderstoryline at the same time you have huge characterstorylines would seem - perhaps overkill in one episode- and leave next episode in limbo

 

[Top41]

Great point --hopefully You will let me quote that sometime-----

Absolutely!

But as franchise....are they betting on the loyal viewers or the avarage ones.....Let´s say: Stella dyeing her hair blond or sleeping with Adam.
You would have a part of fan base going - "she would never do that. That is so out of character" and perhaps from an avarage viewer pov.- "Wow- didn´t see that comming....Wow they did go there".

It's hard to say, really. Some shows live and die by their loyal viewers--but those are usually cult hits. And in that case, the audience is often smaller and a lot of times doesn't constitute enough of a viewership for the show to survive long term. Think Firefly or Veronica Mars or Jerico--shows that had hugely devoted followings but didn't make that much of an impact in the ratings--at least not enough to survive.

The CSI shows, on the other hand, are some of the biggest ratings performers out there, but a lot of those viewers are older and probably don't come on the net to discuss the shows. They also probably rely on the episodic format, meaning that you can see one episode, miss the next and come back for the one after that and not miss anything storywise. Each episode is more or less its own story. Now, if you're invested in the characters, you'll probably come back every week... but only if you're really invested. Obviously the shows have a pretty strong fanbase, but a lot of those people might be folks who just like a really good murder mystery.

Or as per. this debat... correct timelines not important in favor of working storyline.
And per. this debat....having show interchanging between "easy" murdermystery build -up vs. more focus on characerbehaviour? Using a super murderstoryline at the same time you have huge characterstorylines would seem - perhaps overkill in one episode- and leave next episode in limbo

And that's why we see character fall by the wayside a lot in these shows. Murder is what the CSI shows are based around--as people have said in the past, science is the star of the show. You'll never really see an episode that's only character-based, with no murder mystery at the heart of it because that's not what these shows do. The most you'll see is some outside of the box storytelling like (literally, lol) "The Box" or "Trapped" or "All Access" or "Hostage" where a main character ends up at the center of a mystery or has a personal connection one way or another to it.

 

[Ajbuckly]

Great point --hopefully You will let me quote that sometime-----

Absolutely!

But as franchise....are they betting on the loyal viewers or the avarage ones.....Let´s say: Stella dyeing her hair blond or sleeping with Adam.
You would have a part of fan base going - "she would never do that. That is so out of character" and perhaps from an avarage viewer pov.- "Wow- didn´t see that comming....Wow they did go there".

It's hard to say, really. Some shows live and die by their loyal viewers--but those are usually cult hits. And in that case, the audience is often smaller and a lot of times doesn't constitute enough of a viewership for the show to survive long term. Think Firefly or Veronica Mars or Jerico--shows that had hugely devoted followings but didn't make that much of an impact in the ratings--at least not enough to survive.

A. But was that not the beginning ( pardon my spelling = new add. to forums. Correction of spelling:lol of LV and X- files? The "Buzz" making them great and beyond the cultfollowers?

The CSI shows, on the other hand, are some of the biggest ratings performers out there, but a lot of those viewers are older and probably don't come on the net to discuss the shows. They also probably rely on the episodic format, meaning that you can see one episode, miss the next and come back for the one after that and not miss anything storywise. Each episode is more or less its own story. Now, if you're invested in the characters, you'll probably come back every week... but only if you're really invested. Obviously the shows have a pretty strong fanbase, but a lot of those people might be folks who just like a really good murder mystery.

Thanks I have been looking for the term for so long. I completely agree with the rest of the post. But then question will be: where to next for the indvidual episode but also the Showmarket as such? As you said the niche that is CSI is flooded allready. So character and viewerinvestment is essential. As Characterdevelopment in Miami is being disappointing as my expectations. "Criminal minds" becomes my new addiction. . I flew the scene of the crime and move to other shows.

Or as per. this debat... correct timelines not important in favor of working storyline.
And per. this debat....having show interchanging between "easy" murdermystery build -up vs. more focus on characerbehaviour? Using a super murderstoryline at the same time you have huge characterstorylines would seem - perhaps overkill in one episode- and leave next episode in limbo

And that's why we see character fall by the wayside a lot in these shows. Murder is what the CSI shows are based around--as people have said in the past, science is the star of the show. You'll never really see an episode that's only character-based, with no murder mystery at the heart of it because that's not what these shows do. The most you'll see is some outside of the box storytelling like (literally, lol) "The Box" or "Trapped" or "All Access" or "Hostage" where a main character ends up at the center of a mystery or has a personal connection one way or another to it.

Originally I posted this in the ratings/demografic news tread next door. But would like to hear your reply also: I wonder, where the edge comes from then? Above 49 or below 18. I understand that the complete mill. can´t come from one or the other end. But if Generation Y (1990 -2000 = Y or Millinium Generation) is one of the smallest generations out where as the beatnik and X generations are bigger and act + spend money as if they were young. Then the demografic might need some adjustment. Then the money might be in 30 - 60 instead of 16 - 28. All being relative of course.

But one of my questions being: is the majority of the demografic in top or buttom of the agegroups?
And What number is the magic number that breaks a show?

And as showrunners: You have the balance character and emotion. Stella might have targetgroup 35 - 50 and should mirror the troubles and live of that agegroup but that demografic has the same need for sweetlove-emotion as others and there you could have D/L. So where do you see them take characters? IMO we will not see a Mac married for too long. There is so much open book as to him unwed then married.

Well my (what - 3 or 4?) question is the magic "buzz" that use to based on the youth, do you think we will find that in mature viewers instead? and thereby change showhandling of characters?

Thanks for taking the time to debat this...BTW.