is CBS being disrespectful - Page 4 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

barwars · 05-15-2004, 11:55 AM

Although I would never watch CSI over Frasier.... its good that it aired opposite of it.
If shows didnt have competition.... all we would have on TV is stuff that does "alright" whether its with critics or ratings -- but with competition, the networks (well, used to at least) tried to put the best shows on air, not settling for shows that are just "alright".

Has a show ever lasted more than 2 or 3 seasons that wasnt liked by the critics, and didnt have many viewers?

Dean Winchester · 05-15-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JT
That, I can agree with. But saying that its disrespectful? That's just selfish.

how is it "selfish" to say one network is being disrespectful? I mean, selfish is when you don't share something with somebody else. Anyways, I kinda agree with BarWars' assessment, so there!

Miss Golden · 05-15-2004, 03:40 PM

All CBS had back in 1993 when Cheers ended was Murphy Brown and Evening Shade.

Dean Winchester · 05-15-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tvobscurities
The reason CBS aired CSI at the same time as the final episodes of Friends and Frasier is because CBS knew that neither Friends or Frasier would pull in a large enough audience to totally outperform the competition. CSI is not only the biggest show on CBS, it is the biggest show on television at this time. So, CBS decided to pit their hit show against a Friends knowing that they would be able to get millions of viewers -- and guess what, it worked.

I don't see where you say that Friends wasn't big enough, but Cheers, MASH and Seinfeld were? Seinfeld was #1 in it's last season, but Friends' standings this season were comparable (about fourth place) to where Cheers and Mash were ranked in their final seasons. It's hardly like the show had fallen into the 70's and NBC was mercykilling it.

Frasier, while the ratings had fallen dramatically since it's heyday, was still pulling in the 20's and 30's on average. The last episode of Family Ties rocketed back to #1 with GREAT ratings, and yet it only finished off in the 50's that final season. Why would you say Friends and Frasier aren't popular?

Dean Winchester · 05-15-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Miss Golden
All CBS had back in 1993 when Cheers ended was Murphy Brown and Evening Shade.

yep, and in the 92-93 season, Murphy Brown was getting higher ratings than Cheers was getting, but CBS didn't decide to sabotage the final Cheers with a new Murphy Brown episode.

Dean Winchester · 05-15-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by barwars88
Although I would never watch CSI over Frasier.... its good that it aired opposite of it.
If shows didnt have competition.... all we would have on TV is stuff that does "alright" whether its with critics or ratings -- but with competition, the networks (well, used to at least) tried to put the best shows on air, not settling for shows that are just "alright".

but why don't networks dare air anything against the Super Bowl or Oscars? Just like how not everybody is a fan of a certain series, not everybody cares about football, and many people certainly don't really care to see stuck-up Hollywood types using their time to win an award as their excuse to get on a podium. If everything was "fair", then the networks would also air shows that could bring in ratings up against the Super Bowl and Oscars instead of forfeiting the nights to whoever is showing those this year.

TVFactFan · 05-15-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
but why don't networks dare air anything against the Super Bowl or Oscars? Just like how not everybody is a fan of a certain series, not everybody cares about football, and many people certainly don't really care to see stuck-up Hollywood types using their time to win an award as their excuse to get on a podium. If everything was "fair", then the networks would also air shows that could bring in ratings up against the Super Bowl and Oscars instead of forfeiting the nights to whoever is showing those this year.

Because no Program can compete with the Superbowl. That's a known fact. Even individuals who don;'t watch sports watch the Superbowl.

Dean Winchester · 05-15-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Because no Program can compete with the Superbowl. That's a known fact. Even individuals who don;'t watch sports watch the Superbowl.

yes, but if I recall, didn't Mash beat Super Bowl as the most watched program of 1983, and I think the final episodes of Cheers and Seinfeld gave the Super Bowls a run for their money in 1993 and 1998.

barwars · 05-15-2004, 03:55 PM

I think this arguement is over.
CSI aired opposite of both Friends and Frasier -- and lost both weeks.
NBC gets the win -- they're happy.

barwars · 05-15-2004, 03:59 PM

If it were the early 80s, or even the early 90s, or even the late 90s -- both final episodes of Friends and Frasier wouldve pulled in just as big numbers as MASH, Cheers or Seinfeld.

But time has changed since then, TV is a lot different.
I think I read somewhere that collectively, more people watch cable than the big 4 networks combined.
There as twice as many channels today than there was when Seinfeld ended, and 100x the amount of channels when MASH ended.

USTVFanFromUK · 05-15-2004, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I don't see where you say that Friends wasn't big enough, but Cheers, MASH and Seinfeld were? Seinfeld was #1 in it's last season, but Friends' standings this season were comparable (about fourth place) to where Cheers and Mash were ranked in their final seasons. It's hardly like the show had fallen into the 70's and NBC was mercykilling it.

To be fair Cheers and Seinfeld peaked late in their runs. Both became top ten and #1 rated shows very late in their runs. Whereas Friends was a hit from the start and towards the latter seasons it had already peaked in popularity though it still had stellar numbers.

USTVFanFromUK · 05-15-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
but why don't networks dare air anything against the Super Bowl or Oscars? Just like how not everybody is a fan of a certain series, not everybody cares about football, and many people certainly don't really care to see stuck-up Hollywood types using their time to win an award as their excuse to get on a podium. If everything was "fair", then the networks would also air shows that could bring in ratings up against the Super Bowl and Oscars instead of forfeiting the nights to whoever is showing those this year.

Probabaly becuase both the Super Bowl AND the Oscars air on Sundays. No network baring HBO airs anything on Sunday nights. I remember a few years back when I lived in the states the low Oscar numbers were blamed on HBO, since an episode of the Sopranos was aired during the Oscars. IMO it all comes down to ratings and every network has the right to air its highest rated show next to a finale on another network. CSI is currently the #1 show in the US and it usually airs on Thursday nights beating Friends on a weekly basis except the fianle. CBS has every right to air the #1 show on televison the night is was intended to air and espically since it's the #1 show on television. I'm sure NBC would have done the same if CBS had a big finale. No network is respectful anymore. It comes down to ratings plain and simple.

Skywalker · 05-15-2004, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
yep, and in the 92-93 season, Murphy Brown was getting higher ratings than Cheers was getting, but CBS didn't decide to sabotage the final Cheers with a new Murphy Brown episode.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Murphy Brown air on Mondays? If CBS would have put a new episode of Murphy on against the final episode of Cheers, Murphy would have gotten clobbered.

James"Thunder"Early · 05-15-2004, 06:02 PM

No, I don't see it as disrespectful. I would have done the same thing if it was my network. it's all about money and the other two networks can't afford to lose the advertisers dollars. plus, they must show that they're competitve against these shows. Cheers is a different story, Friends didn't hold the same type of fanbase as Cheers so no one really cared if something else aired then.

tvfan0101 · 05-15-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BuffySlayer79
I don't see where you say that Friends wasn't big enough, but Cheers, MASH and Seinfeld were?

I think the fact that despite the fact that Friends pulled in 50+ million viewers for its series finale CSI managed 20 million speaks for itself.

Seinfeld went out in the 1997/1998 season with a 22.0 rating. Friends, despite reaching the #1 spot for the 2001/2002 season, has never pulled in more than an 18.7 season average, and that was in its second season when it was ranked third. The number one show for a season hasn't broken into the 20.0 range since the 1997/1998 season, when Seinfeld ended. During the 2001/2002 season when Friends claimed the top spot it had a 15.0 rating. For the 2002/2003 season CSI was in the top spot with a 16.3 rating. So far for the 2003/2004 season the highest rated show, again CSI, has a 15.9 rating. That's a difference of 6 ratings points between the top-rated show for the 1997/1998 season and the current 2003/2004 season. That's huge.

Cable is everywhere and it is taking a toll on network television. The fact of the matter is, no matter how popular a show is, no matter how long it has been on the air, there is little chance of there being another M*A*S*H or Cheers. There are simply too many other places for people to watch. When M*A*S*H ended you could be watching one of three things, or, if you had cable back then, a few more. Network television was still the place to be. FOX was gaining strength in 1993 when Cheers ended, but still, only a handful of places to watch. Seinfeld may well be the last of the great finales.

And, if you really want to break it down even more, Friends and CSI are targeted at vastly different audiences. CBS knew full well that the majority of people who watch CSI, an hour-long crime drama, wouldn't be interested in the final episode of a usually half-hour-long sitcom.

I don't mean any of this as a slight against Friends or Frasier, I'm crazy about the former and the latter has become a favorite of mine lately. I'm just trying to explain how I see things in regards to television, ratings and finales.

05-15-2004, 11:55 AM	#46
barwars .. Forum Star Join Date: May 04, 2002 Posts: 13,273	Although I would never watch CSI over Frasier.... its good that it aired opposite of it. If shows didnt have competition.... all we would have on TV is stuff that does "alright" whether its with critics or ratings -- but with competition, the networks (well, used to at least) tried to put the best shows on air, not settling for shows that are just "alright". Has a show ever lasted more than 2 or 3 seasons that wasnt liked by the critics, and didnt have many viewers?

05-15-2004, 03:40 PM	#48
Miss Golden Member Senior Member Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Posts: 1,231	All CBS had back in 1993 when Cheers ended was Murphy Brown and Evening Shade.

05-15-2004, 03:55 PM	#54
barwars .. Forum Star Join Date: May 04, 2002 Posts: 13,273	I think this arguement is over. CSI aired opposite of both Friends and Frasier -- and lost both weeks. NBC gets the win -- they're happy.

05-15-2004, 03:59 PM	#55
barwars .. Forum Star Join Date: May 04, 2002 Posts: 13,273	If it were the early 80s, or even the early 90s, or even the late 90s -- both final episodes of Friends and Frasier wouldve pulled in just as big numbers as MASH, Cheers or Seinfeld. But time has changed since then, TV is a lot different. I think I read somewhere that collectively, more people watch cable than the big 4 networks combined. There as twice as many channels today than there was when Seinfeld ended, and 100x the amount of channels when MASH ended.

05-15-2004, 06:02 PM	#59
James"Thunder"Early Whoever's In New England Forum Veteran Join Date: Feb 23, 2004 Location: The Apollo Posts: 7,087	No, I don't see it as disrespectful. I would have done the same thing if it was my network. it's all about money and the other two networks can't afford to lose the advertisers dollars. plus, they must show that they're competitve against these shows. Cheers is a different story, Friends didn't hold the same type of fanbase as Cheers so no one really cared if something else aired then.