<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Critical Acclaim Does Not Equal Ratings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745</link>
	<description>Nielsen TV Show Ratings, Data and More</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:17:54 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Em</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-15027</link>
		<dc:creator>Em</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-15027</guid>
		<description>Yawn.  Stretch.   90210 and Gossip Girl. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yawn.  Stretch.   90210 and Gossip Girl. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gusar</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-15018</link>
		<dc:creator>Gusar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-15018</guid>
		<description>This stunts with 90210 doesn&#039;t make any sense to me. Isn&#039;t the goal of a show to have &lt;i&gt;stability&lt;/i&gt;? As in, stable ratings week to week? The thing is, the premiere might have huge numbers because of this stunt, but if it&#039;s crap no one will tune in again. If it&#039;s good, it will do good, screeners or not. My personal feeling is that it&#039;s crap - all the buzz is about the old cast, I haven&#039;t got a clue about the new people. You can&#039;t build a show around that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This stunts with 90210 doesn&#39;t make any sense to me. Isn&#39;t the goal of a show to have <i>stability</i>? As in, stable ratings week to week? The thing is, the premiere might have huge numbers because of this stunt, but if it&#39;s crap no one will tune in again. If it&#39;s good, it will do good, screeners or not. My personal feeling is that it&#39;s crap &#8211; all the buzz is about the old cast, I haven&#39;t got a clue about the new people. You can&#39;t build a show around that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wopa</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14997</link>
		<dc:creator>wopa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14997</guid>
		<description>Two and a Half Men is maybe the worst sitcom in years but they get great ratings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two and a Half Men is maybe the worst sitcom in years but they get great ratings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sandy</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14993</link>
		<dc:creator>Sandy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14993</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: angelscrest</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14983</link>
		<dc:creator>angelscrest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:07:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14983</guid>
		<description>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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Lately, TV reviewers don&#039;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Lately, TV reviewers don&#39;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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chris</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14980</link>
		<dc:creator>chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14980</guid>
		<description>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&#039;t last forever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#39;t last forever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14979</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14979</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angie</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14974</link>
		<dc:creator>Angie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:13:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14974</guid>
		<description>&quot;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.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You have a flaw in your logic here if you&#039;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&#039;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&#039;s viewers aren&#039;t online, they just don&#039;t exist.   And I don&#039;t want to here about &quot;measurement&quot; problems, either -- all the other networks, including cable networks, seem to have no problem coming up with higher ratings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>You have a flaw in your logic here if you&#39;re comparing Gossip Girl/90210 to the above notions &#8212; Gossip Girl is a show critics trash, PLUS it has paltry ratings, even for the CW.  It&#39;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&#39;s viewers aren&#39;t online, they just don&#39;t exist.   And I don&#39;t want to here about &#8220;measurement&#8221; problems, either &#8212; all the other networks, including cable networks, seem to have no problem coming up with higher ratings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Seidman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14965</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Seidman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14965</guid>
		<description>Holly, delighted that there won&#039;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&#039;ve seen since launching this site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holly, delighted that there won&#39;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&#39;ve seen since launching this site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/20/critical-acclaim-does-not-equal-ratings/4745#comment-14960</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/?p=4745#comment-14960</guid>
		<description>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?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
