Firefly cancelled!

[Umbran]

Umbran, are you being intentionally obtuse?

Nope. I admit to the rather speculative nature of my position. I'm simply trying to point out that you cannot beat speculation with more speculation. If you actually want us to shut up about Neilsen ratings, you'll need to give us something more solid than what we already have.

You have offered no reason as to why it would tend to under represent sci-fi (though I offered at least one reason, speculation though it is, as to why it might over represent them).

Actually, I have, though I didn't point it out as such. Sci-fi fans have repeatedly felt the need to make a big stink about cancellations. Assuming some basics about mass psychology (that sci-fi fans really aren't that much more rabid than any other viewer, on the whole), we get the implication that if there's so many who are making a stink, then there's lots more who aren't.

So, given we have no data, YOU STAND A 50-50 CHANCE. How are the odds, without data, anything OTHER than 50-50? It's a flip of the coin as to whether the number is higher or lower than what Neilsen says it is

Here I'll be picky, rather than obteuse - our "chance of guessing correctly" would only be 50-50 if there were only two possibilities, and we were guessing in complete ignorance, at random. That's not the case here.

For one thing, there's more than two possibilities - You may be right, I may be right, and many, many shades of neither or both of us are correct in some sense.

For another, we are not guessing at random. We are basing our positions off of some observed evidence followed by some reasoning. Our "chance" is then based upon how valid our observations are, and how closely our reasoning follows reality.

In the end, though, this doesn't matter. Since when is being less than 100% sure ever been a barrier to making a suggestion or attempting something new? Bigger things than TV shows have been built on lesser odds.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, I have, though I didn't point it out as such. Sci-fi fans have repeatedly felt the need to make a big stink about cancellations. Assuming some basics about mass psychology (that sci-fi fans really aren't that much more rabid than any other viewer, on the whole), we get the implication that if there's so many who are making a stink, then there's lots more who aren't.

The reasons for sci-fi fans being more vocal than non-sci-fi fans have been well documented, but I will briefly repeat them.

1) Sci-fi fans are also more computer literate and more internet savy (and yes, I can back that up with lot's of pretty rock solid statistics, there are a HUGE number of sci-fi fans active on the internet than disproportionate to their numbers). The organization for all these protest movements has all taken place through the internet. It is only natural that such protest movements would therefore be bigger;

2) Sci-fi fans stick up for one another more than fans of other genres (like I did, by writing numerous letters to executives about the cancellation of Farscape despite the fact that I don't actually watch Farscape);

3) Pychologically I think you can show that sci-fi fans are much more rabid than fans of other genres based on the tendancy of sci-fi fans to view themselves as social outcasts more often and therefore more apt to obsess over what social structures they do embrace in their life.

4) Sci-fi shows are more serialized in nature, which means that anyone who is still watching it near the end of the show has a lot invested in the show, and a lot more to loose when the show gets cancelled (not being able to see how it all turns out). Therefore, they will be more vocal than shows which are generally not serialized (and there are more non-sci-fi shows that are not serialized).

Anyway, my point is that the number of vocal sci-fi fans bears no relation to the overall viewers of sci-fi shows. I believe because of the nature of sci-fi, and the people it attracts, you will naturally have a more vocal audience than other genres.

Here I'll be picky, rather than obteuse - our "chance of guessing correctly" would only be 50-50 if there were only two possibilities, and we were guessing in complete ignorance, at random. That's not the case here.For one thing, there's more than two possibilities - You may be right, I may be right, and many, many shades of neither or both of us are correct in some sense.

You are incorrect. Here are the possibilities:

1) The Neilsen ratings are underrepresenting the ratings for Firefly;
2) The Nelisen ratings are exactly correct for the ratings for Firefly;
3) The Neilsen ratings are overrepresenting the ratings for Firefly.

That's it. There are not other possibilities. And since we both agree for purposes of this discussion that the Neilsen ratings are flawed in some way (and if you did not admit that, then there is no disucssion), then it really is a 50-50 chance that it is either over or under representing the viewers for the show. That's it. This is not a shades of gray question.

For another, we are not guessing at random. We are basing our positions off of some observed evidence followed by some reasoning. Our "chance" is then based upon how valid our observations are, and how closely our reasoning follows reality.

Everything you have said aboud how vocal sci-fi fans are, and that I have said about why that vocalization bears no relation to the number of fans and actually the rabidness of the fans would increase the Neilsen ratings aritifically for sci-fi shows, is pure speculation. We really are guessing at random. Neither of us has sufficient data to even come up with a correlation. We are just fans with opinions. So, again, we are back to 50-50.

In the end, though, this doesn't matter. Since when is being less than 100% sure ever been a barrier to making a suggestion or attempting something new? Bigger things than TV shows have been built on lesser odds.

My whole point is that you should be a LOT more sure about your claim that the Neilsen ratings are under representing the number of sci-fi viewers before you "fix" the Neilsens. You very well may result in a new system that cuts out all sci-fi as we know it, as opposed to just a few shows here and there. You do not have enough data to take such a risk on behalf of all sci-fi fans.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: You know Mistwell....

You do know that BBC America is NOT publically funded, right?

I am a big fan of So Graham Norton. Cracker is good too.

I thought BBC America was just a programming package sold to US cable/satelite companies. An extension of the BBC practice of selling individual shows to American PBS stations. I assumed the content on BBC America was standard issue BBC programming, at least partially publically funded.

My parents get BBC America, unfortunately I don't {I catch coupling on PBS}. Is Cracker the Robbie Coltrane show?

 

[Umbran]

1) Sci-fi fans are also more computer literate and more internet savy (and yes, I can back that up with lot's of pretty rock solid statistics...

Then do so. Until you provide data and attribution, I'm sorry to say your claim is still classified as hearsay. Asserting that you've seen a thing is not the same as actually presenting said thing.

*sigh* Discussions on the whole would go more smoothly if people would simply remember the simple rule - show, don't tell. If you've got proof, don't spend time saying you have it. Just deliver it and be done.

4) Sci-fi shows are more serialized in nature, which means that anyone who is still watching it near the end of the show has a lot invested in the show...

The contention that sci-fi is more serialized in nature doesn't hold up well. The modern prime time drama is pretty serialized - stop watching ER for a while, you get lost. A large draw for some reality shows are their serial nature - watching the progression of the internal politics/interactions over time.

Some Sci-fi shows are serial, but interestingly, the best rated ones - Star Trek shows, are highly episodic. As were a number of shows lost during or at the end of their first seasons - GvsE, Brimstone, Crusade, and Firefly were all pretty much episodic at the time they were canned.

This point #4 really only applies to B5 and Farscape, really. They're the only recent long-run shows that were threatened with extinction. Mostly, though, we're talking about shows killed at or before roughtly the 24th episode - while they are still "1st season. Not that much had yet been invested, and so folks didn't have much to lose. But there was still organized resistance for all of them.

You are incorrect. Here are the possibilities:

1) The Neilsen ratings are underrepresenting the ratings for Firefly;
2) The Nelisen ratings are exactly correct for the ratings for Firefly;
3) The Neilsen ratings are overrepresenting the ratings for Firefly.

That'd be all well in good, if my original contention was about Firefly, specifically. I believe if you re-read, you'll find that I've mentioned a belief that Neilsen ratings are inaccurate - meaning that I suspect they undercount sci-fi/fantasy viewers in general. I also noted that I don't think this is certain. Nor did I specifically claim that Firefly is inaccurately reported. Given my general contention, the myriad possibilities still exist. Some shows may get undercounted, some overcounted, for different reasons. The end average may still be undercounting.

My whole point is that you should be a LOT more sure about your claim that the Neilsen ratings are under representing the number of sci-fi viewers before you "fix" the Neilsens.

Now, Mistwell, I really, really must ask you to pay attention.

I haven't suggested any "fix" for the Neilsen rating system. In fact, I speciifcally stated, "The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system." Elsewhere, I have even gone so far as to argue against a repeatedly mentioned "fix" for the system (using TiVo boxes as rating-meters).

You really do have to be a bit more careful. You'll find it hard to convince a person you are correct when you don't even keep straight which position they hold.

 

[Daiymo]

I haven't read the entire thread but I gather that most of you liked Firefly. I personally am not in the majority opinion here. I tried to like it, I watched it several times each time with the firm intention of liking it. But it plainly made no sense to me, it was hard to pick up, and the dialogue and plot were boring. I even prefer Voyager to what I say. I am glad it has been cancelled.

I certainly respect your opinion Rahkan. I didnt like the first couple of episodes-some of it was a bit slowish for me, and there was much I didn't know why it was going on. As time went on it grew on me(or rather I should say, the characters grew on me). The only quibble I had was that the main obstacle that the group had to overcome each week was the "someone got shot far away from the proper medical attention" quandry. Or at least it seemed like that.

However, I think my initial confusion and Rahkan's( and the countless masses that perhaps tried the show, but gave up slightly confused) could have been lessened if Fox had PLAYED THE PILOT FIRST!!! Sorry for the Caps I mean, I still dont understand the wisdom of just throwing the series out there, essentially in midstream, without giving us some setup and context, which the pilot(shown last, after the show had been cancelled) did.

IMHO, you may argue demographics and economics of TV, but I think it just comes down to the fact FOX half heartedly supported the show, shuffled it and preempted it and really never gave it too much support. Even their ad campaign touting the show totally misreprented the show IMHO, and made it seem like a completely different show than it really was.

Geez..

 

[Mistwell]

Then do so. Until you provide data and attribution, I'm sorry to say your claim is still classified as hearsay. Asserting that you've seen a thing is not the same as actually presenting said thing.

*sigh* Discussions on the whole would go more smoothly if people would simply remember the simple rule - show, don't tell. If you've got proof, don't spend time saying you have it. Just deliver it and be done.

If you PROMISE that, if proof is provided, you will concede on this discussion and drop it, then I will go get the proof. Otherwise, it would be futile - I would be wasting my precious hours digging up info just so you can say "I need more, that doesn't persuade me". Deal?

The contention that sci-fi is more serialized in nature doesn't hold up well. The modern prime time drama is pretty serialized - stop watching ER for a while, you get lost. A large draw for some reality shows are their serial nature - watching the progression of the internal politics/interactions over time.

I feel the percentage of sci-fi shows that are serialized is higher than non-sci-fi shows in a material way. Sure, there are episodic and serialied shows in all genres. I just think sci-fi has a significanltly higher perecentage than other genres.

That'd be all well in good, if my original contention was about Firefly, specifically. I believe if you re-read, you'll find that I've mentioned a belief that Neilsen ratings are inaccurate - meaning that I suspect they undercount sci-fi/fantasy viewers in general. I also noted that I don't think this is certain. Nor did I specifically claim that Firefly is inaccurately reported.

If you think your own arguement is not valid for Firefly...then why did you bring it up in THIS thread?

Now, Mistwell, I really, really must ask you to pay attention.

Please don't be rude. That's the second time you have accused me of not paying sufficient attention to what you say, and you were wrong the first time so I would think you would be a bit mor polite about it the second time. We are having a discussion. We are going point by point, through dozens of points. If someone misses one thing, or misinterprets one thing, it doesn't mean they were not paying attention to what you were saying. Please be polite.

I haven't suggested any "fix" for the Neilsen rating system. In fact, I speciifcally stated, "The networks can go ahead and keep their ratings systems. This notion works within the system." Elsewhere, I have even gone so far as to argue against a repeatedly mentioned "fix" for the system (using TiVo boxes as rating-meters).

You've said this however "If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it."
So by implication you feel the system should have been "fixed", but that it hasn't been for nefarious reasons. You then went on to discuss a method of eliminating the ratings system entirely through public television (how this eliminates the system I still don't know, since you would think public television would still want to show things that the most number of people would want to watch, and therefore would want to use Neilsen also). That appeared to be your "fix". If I am wrong about that, then so be it. But my being wrong didn't come from a lack of attention to what you have said.

You really do have to be a bit more careful. You'll find it hard to convince a person you are correct when you don't even keep straight which position they hold.

More unecessary rudeness, and the second time you have taken such an extreme sarcastic stance. If this is going to continue, then I think the conversation should end here. I'm all in favor of a civil discussion, but not if you are going to get all catty.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, folks, but this one will be long...

If you PROMISE that, if proof is provided, you will concede on this discussion and drop it, then I will go get the proof.

You want me to promise ahead of time that I will be convinced by your data? That's buying a pig in a poke. No deal.
I can promise to review the data you submit with an open mind. I will not agree to call it proof before seeing it, knowing who gathered it, and how.

I feel the percentage of sci-fi shows that are serialized is higher than non-sci-fi shows in a material way.

Fine. I disagree. I feel the number of serialized shows in sci-fi is about the same as in other grenres. Unless we're going to sit down and define "serialized" and "sci-fi show" in depth, so that we could actually take a count, we shall have to remain in disagreement. I personally don't feel the point is so important as to go to the bother.

If you think your own arguement is not valid for Firefly...then why did you bring it up in THIS thread?

I have not decided if Firefly was undercounted or not.
I wasn't the one who brought up undercounting, or the idea that the Neilsen's were broken. I discussed the topic - and stated my uncertainty - because someone else mentioned it. Topics do drift, you know.

That's the second time you have accused me of not paying sufficient attention to what you say, and you were wrong the first time so I would think you would be a bit mor polite about it the second time.

As for the rest - from where I sit, I was not wrong the first time. I mentioned "maximally funded public TV". I stated that I disagree with your position that maximally funded public TV is mutually exclusive with extensive corporate TV, and gave basic support for that position. You still insist that I have a plan to eliminate the ratings system through public TV, though I have no such thing, and have already stated multiple times that I feel corporate TV and ratings systems can stay in place. That is at the very best you misreading me gravely.

Please be polite.

Right. I'm sorry, but since impoliteness wasn't my intent, I feel a bit put out by the accusation. As I'm only human, I will vent my frustration in a single bout of peevishness - I wasn't the one who first thought laughing in all capital letters was an appropriate technique in polite discussion. Pot, kettle. People in glass houses, plank from your own eye, hoist with your own petard, Golden Rule, and all that. You're in a poor position to take umbrage at sarcasm, sir, since you already used it yourself. Thus endeth my peevishness.

You've said this however "If the system is broken now, it has been so for years. If the networks really were making a good faith effort to fix it, then it would have gotten fixed. They've had the money and the time, if they really wished to apply it."
So by implication you feel the system should have been "fixed", but that it hasn't been for nefarious reasons. You then went on to discuss a method of eliminating the ratings system entirely through public television (how this eliminates the system I still don't know, since you would think public television would still want to show things that the most number of people would want to watch, and therefore would want to use Neilsen also). That appeared to be your "fix". If I am wrong about that, then so be it. But my being wrong didn't come from a lack of attention to what you have said.

(For the readers at home, I made the post Mistwell is quoting on January 19th.)

First, you choose a very interesting place from which to take a quote. Earlier in the very same paragraph, I state, "While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is 'broken'..". An explicit statement that I am not sure whether the system is accurate preceeds your inference in the vary same paragraph, but you seem to ignore it.

Second, there is no implication of which you speak. You seem to ignore the presence of the big two-letter word - if. I speak about what is likely true if the system is broken. I fully leave open the possibility that the system isn't broken - but that case is trivial, uninteresting, and wasn't the topic of discussion at the moment. Not addressing the "not broken" option explicitly does not consititute a statement that I believe the system is broken.

Third, there are many ways to fail to make a good faith attempt at things. Nefariousness is one. But incompetance, casual disregard, and difference of opinion are also possibilities. There are others, as well. I made no claim or implication that skulduggery was afoot. That comes only from you.

Fourth, I never presented public television as a method of eliminating the ratings system. I presented public TV as what it has traditionally been in the USA - a way to see a show that wouldn't survive the cutthroat world of corporate TV and the whims of the broad viewing public. I presented publicly funded production of a way to make a poorly rated show profitable for corporate channels, explicitly stating that it happens within the rating system. This "Umbran wants to eliminate corporate TV and the Neilsen system" is a boogeyman created in your own head, which I have tried to dispel repeatedly, with rational support. But you maintain it despite my protestations.

So, you are wrong about many things here. Do you wish to explain this rather substantial list of failures to correctly characterize and read my position? It's a bit too much, and too deep, and too concentrated to explain away as the occasional slip-up.

I'm afraid the only reasonable thing I can guess is that you've become so heated in your defense of "the system" that you no longer pay much attention to what's being said. It happens occasionally, no big deal. My recent reminder to you to pay closer attention was intended to get you to look beyond your own heated temper, to see that I am not the target you think I am.