"Fringe" on Fox HD - Page 153

Less serialized, and less viewing choices 10-20 years ago [not to mention better chemistry between it's lead players.]

I don't think that these are "new" universes, just the same two with the survival of one version of Peter Bishop edited out of them. The Observer's gave September a mission at the beginning of the season, saying that Peter wasn't completely erased and that "they" were starting to remember. (September built the necessary piece of equipment but at the last minute chose not to use it). It looks as if Olivia has completely remembered the way things were previously--why would those memories even exist in a spin-off universe?

From the recap of the season premiere at TV.com:

I guess renewal comes down to three factors 1. What happens with Terra Nova and Alcatraz unfortunately one or both of these shows will probably need to go. 2. The licencing fee has to be brought down by WB to make the show more profitable. 3. Hope the development slate for next season for fox lacks decent 1 hour dramas.

Listen I don't want to get my hopes up on fringe getting a season 5 but at least with house ending it is slightly more possible then it was a week ago. And if it does get a season 5 I think it will be 13 episodes max to get the series to 100 episodes for syndication.

One way to save money is to drop all the 3D captions they have to add in post.

Obviously not literally drop, because that would cause a greater hazard to the characters than holes in the universe.

What's with the 100? Some magic number?

Terra Nova is a waste, just another Lost or something like that. A bunch of kids running around.
Alcatraz is a disappointment.

That's how I felt. This season's momentum was seriously challenged by scheduling issues and character development for the new versions. However, they are slowing shifting the characters back. As stated above, I think we'll find the blue universe reconstructed. If you watched the previews there's more evidence of this happening. Walter and Olivia are coming around.

100 episodes is the traditional threshold at which point a television series becomes viable for syndication. Shows of limited profitability during their first run will still prove to be viable to the production company if they can last 100 episodes. In recent years, this point is usually reached during a series' fifth season.

You can't say you don't know these characters because you do. They are essentially the same people who have slightly altered interactions with the world. In fact this season is becoming no more than a minor amnesia trip which is slowly falling away.

We are watching this season from Peter's point of view. How he has affected the world both positively and negatively. You should care about what has been taken from these characters like Walter and in the case of Walternate, what will replace them if the universes are aligned again.

You could have made the same argument about why we should have cared about the alternate universe when the show started setting entire episodes there. It's the difference between what you know and what you are seeing that makes the characters interesting. Seeing alternate versions doesn't diminish the original characters in any way and I have no problem watching how their personalities can be shifted with minor alterations to their lives.

Based on what we've been seeing the main characters will regain their old memories or personalities over the course of the season just through Peter's presence. In that case the only difference will be the world they occupy and if Peter doesn't have the same effect on Walternate's universe then the outcome will actually be better for all involved. The war will solve itself by both universes uniting against Jones instead of Evil Walter vs Good Walter as it was originally.

Agree with all of this, except I don't think Alcatraz or Terra Nova are in the running for Fringe's slot. They are in the running for Monday only, and with House cancelled, it's a three-way fight between them and Touch, with perhaps one of these series getting a mid-season premiere in the unlikely event that all three are worth renewal. Alcatraz got killed last week against The Voice, so it may end up bleeding out and getting cancelled, but as it stands I think Touch and Alcatraz will be the new Monday series and Terra Nova, which is expensive but lacks either good ratings or good critical reception, will get cancelled.

If any show is going to supplant Fringe, I've come to the conclusion that it's Bones. Bones has been moved before and has durable viewership. It's reaching the end of life and probably only has a few seasons left.

But it probably would pull in better ratings than Fringe.

I strongly doubt that Fringe will get another season, no matter how much top management at Fox likes the show, unless they like it more than their job. It's ratings are abysmal and beyond repair so giving airtime beyond the end of this season is fiscally irresponsible.

Ratings?? No one ask what I watch. I wonder if anyone here has gotten their viewership counted?
Ratings are not and should not be the deciding factor.

As I understand it, ratings determine how much money they can get for advertising and as such are a deciding factor. They've stated that they're losing money at the current ratings levels. Poor ratings can be tolerated when there's hope of increasing audience (and thereby profitability) but there's no such hope here. As people have mentioned, there might be some consideration of buying more episodes to make it more attractive for syndication, but is uncertain future profit worth another 22 hours of airtime with which you could at least try to make money? I'm doubting that anyone can successfully make a case for giving this show even another half season.

Except ratings are the deciding factor. Do you have a better suggestion on how they judge the success of a show? Should they just ask you what you're watching?

Bottom line is, ratings are pretty accurate. A lot of statistics go into who is part of the panel, and how their viewship gets counted.

I have never cared for the whole rating system it just does not sit right with me it is to representative for my taste. I would prefer a system where your DVR, TV, computer can just report back that you watched such and such program at such and such time. Privacy concerns aside I would rather my favorite shows not get cancelled then my data anonymised and lumped in with everyone else.

If it didn't work, it would have been replaced. I don't know a single person who watches Fringe, so I find it very hard to believe that directly counting the viewship would make much of a difference.

True but if the ratings system did not work how would we or anyone else know?

Not a minute too soon. This arc should have been about 4 episodes tops...

That's highly debatable. What percentage of the population is polled?? Very little.

These "continuing plot-line" shows are doomed to all suffer the same fate of shucking viewers as the plot thickens and some can't keep up. Also, new viewers are frozen out at the start because the show's mythology is too impenetrable to just jump in, where the competition can attract new viewers anywhere in their run. Past seasons on DVD might help viewership counts somewhat, giving a chance to catch up, but I doubt very much.

This show is hard enough if the viewer has seen all the shows, as witness the discussions here, but jump in the middle or miss a few episodes — forget it.

My first choice is a contract to extend the run on a cable channel, but excluding that, I hope they tie up loose ends completely and end the show satisfactorily rather than leave it open hoping to somehow, somewhen extend it on cable.

You obviously don't understand statistics.

Well, there are many sources of ratings information these days. If the Nielsen data was really that far off, it would be pretty easy to tell. But it's not.

It's where and how they are arrived at.
Numbers can be made to show almost anything. You don't have to look far, take almost any corporation; two (or more) sets of books.

Obviously.

What incentive would anyone have to make the numbers for any TV show look bad? If people are watching the show, that's a good thing.

That's accounting, not statistics. Two very different fields.

If someone wants to get rid of a show, that would be a solution. Fudge numbers.
Which works the other way, fudge up numbers to make something else look better.

Just like accounting.

Seriously? You don't believe in the science of statistical sampling? The Nielsen Company has no incentive to fudge the numbers in any direction whatsoever. They're paid to do scientific sampling using proven mathematical algorithms and methods.

Just because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not an accurate way of measuring the viewing audience. Heck, every time I see the numbers for 'Fringe' I think, them lyin', thievin' ba$tards! Then I calm down and put the blame where it lies: the American viewing public. They clearly prefer 'Jersey Shore', and who are we to argue?

Bingo.

Do you realize how ridiculous that notion is?

If the show got as many eyes in front of it as this thread, we'd be full on into a "6 seasons & a movie" guarantee.

Hell, dump it on the CW. FRINGE ratings would be considered blockbuster on that network.

Seriously, I do hope that a 5th season - even a truncated one - does happen, but am emotionally prepared for it to not. Still hold out hope that WB/FOX can come to a deal like the studio did w/ NBC in regards to CHUCK. I also have faith that the writers still have the "contingency plan" in place to have the season 4 finale act as a series finale if need be.

And yes, there is no accounting for taste when it comes to American TV viewers. And no - I do not think Nielsen numbers are being fudged. I do think most Americans that watch TV regularly are morons, though, based simply on what often sees solid ratings.

As much as everyone here would like to believe it, people whose tastes differ from yours are not necessarily morons. Plenty of smart, educated people just want to switch their mind off when they watch TV. That doesn't make them morons.

I'd feel more confident in Nielsen, if it weren't for their extensive pre-screening process. We don't *really* know if they are screening to ensure true randomness, or if they are screening to cherry pick viewers. It's a black hole, and I'm sure that they're never going to share their methodology for "peer-review." So in the end, we are left to rely on Faith here instead of science. Caveat Emptor.