I’m not on the rampage against television critics just because I’m put out by not getting the first three episode DVD preview of Gossip Girl. OK, I’m kidding about being put out by missing out on the Gossip Girl preview. I’m not a television critic, I am not a member of the TCA (Television Critics Association) and when I see the hell some of these folks subject themselves to, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want to be one.
But some of my favorite people on the Internet are TV critics, from Aaron Barnhart to the vacationing Tim Goodman to James Hibberd to Mo Ryan, and many more. In this day and age everyone with an opinion (which is everyone) is a critic, but TV critics are particularly good at their jobs. I don’t always agree with them, but I appreciate them and again, I do not envy the abuse some of them wind up subjecting themselves to.
But I’m absolutely delighted that unlike Gossip Girl that the 2008 version of 90210 is not sending out DVD screeners to TV critics. Here’s what’s going to happen with Gossip Girl for the first few weeks of ratings beginning September 1, if the ratings are around what we expect they will be, its fans will chime in with “Sure, but nobody watches Gossip Girl on TV and all the fans downloaded the first three episodes off the Internet!” We will not have to endure this with 90210.
Zap2it’s TV Gal, Amy Amatangelo predicts great ratings for the premiere episode (I agree, at least in terms of the CW and especially relative to Gossip Girl):
The decision also ensures that the ratings for the premiere are going to be huge. The network is doing a heck of a job generating interest – from the stories of Jennie Garth and Shannen Doherty’s first day on the set together (OMG! There was no -gasp- fighting) to the news that Tori Spelling had dropped out of the series to those ads with the scantily clad (and wet) new residents of television’s most famous zip code.
It’s possible that the reason CW is holding back is because the show completely bites, and we’ll find that out very soon after its September 2nd premiere. But, if there ever was a huge correlation between critical reviews and ratings success, those days have passed us by. Shows routinely adored by critics like 30 Rock Mad Men, The Wire and Damages (I think Damages is overrated — good, but not great) get paltry ratings. Meanwhile shows that critics are more prone to trash like Burn Notice and In Plain Sight (and I love these shows, too) get decent ratings.
Are you delighted because you think 90210 will do better because of this or because you think it will take away one of the excuses when it does poorly?
Holly, delighted that there won't be any excuses, whether it does poorly or not. I expect the first episode to be the highest-rated program on the CW we've seen since launching this site.
“Shows routinely adored by critics like 30 Rock Mad Men, The Wire and Damages (I think Damages is overrated — good, but not great) get paltry ratings. Meanwhile shows that critics are more prone to trash like Burn Notice and In Plain Sight (and I love these shows, too) get decent ratings.”
You have a flaw in your logic here if you're comparing Gossip Girl/90210 to the above notions — Gossip Girl is a show critics trash, PLUS it has paltry ratings, even for the CW. It's its own category of bad. Its first run episodes were the lowest rated of all the CW scripted dramas on a regular basis. I suspect 90210 will be the same. The CW's viewers aren't online, they just don't exist. And I don't want to here about “measurement” problems, either — all the other networks, including cable networks, seem to have no problem coming up with higher ratings.
I was not comparing Gossip Girl to 90210 in any way other than it released previews where 90210 did not. I was also not inferring anything about GG ratings as a function of reviews by TV critics. I did not see the reviews for GG last Fall, though most of the ongoing coverage I saw throughout the year seemed more positive than negative.
This, 90210, is definitly the make it or break it show for CW. If it fails the WB and CBS would be better off just scraping it as a network and creating a website to get ad revenue. WB should focus on other TV projects on other networks and movies and CBS should worry about CBS. CSI can't last forever.
Reviews are only an indicator if you know the reviewer and whether their taste coincides with yours. I remember clearly how much the reviewers hated the first Star Wars movie, and yet the lines wrapped around the block for weeks and weeks.
Sometimes I think that reviewers forget their role of helping the public to make up their minds about whether or not to see a film or show.
I really miss Siskel and Ebert, whose frank discussions about films gave me a clear idea about whether I would like a film, regardless of whether they voted thumbs up or thumbs down.
Lately, TV reviewers don't give me a clue about whether or not I will like something, sometimes coming across as too elitist, and other times coming across as having been paid off by the producers.
I have taken to reading comments by posters on internet sites instead. I try to find someone whose taste runs similar to mine and read what they have to say about a product. This seems to work more often than reading critics.
I think 90210 will be an Everybody Hates Chris: have a big premiere in the range of 7 or 8 million, and slowly lose more and more (and more) viewers, especially when it goes up against AI in January.
Two and a Half Men is maybe the worst sitcom in years but they get great ratings.
This stunts with 90210 doesn't make any sense to me. Isn't the goal of a show to have stability? As in, stable ratings week to week? The thing is, the premiere might have huge numbers because of this stunt, but if it's crap no one will tune in again. If it's good, it will do good, screeners or not. My personal feeling is that it's crap – all the buzz is about the old cast, I haven't got a clue about the new people. You can't build a show around that.
Yawn. Stretch. 90210 and Gossip Girl. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.