Ratings News! by Novagrass

That's going to be pretty hard to do.
Trying to beat the Friday night lineup...
Besides, lots of people ran out for
happy hour and the Friday night
premiere of Ecks and Sever (or whatever
other thing is out next Friday night)...

Not even Trek would dare to come up against
that schedule. It's on Wednesday and Sunday
nights. You can't beat that demographic
that watches

"America's funnies *****"

At least, you can count on the fact that
it will be on SciFI...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:06 AM

I made a mistake. It was a 4.1/8 rating. Which I believe is much better.

EDITED TO ADD: I am so very confused. I have no idea how these rating work and the Neilson Media website is confusing me further. Someone please explain!

EDITED AGAIN: So, does this rating mean that Firefly got a 51 share? But then, since this is a percentage, how can 48 Hours get a 54 share and AFV get a 53? That's 158%! Could it mean that people were flipping back and forth? I'm very confused

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:18 AM

I believe the first number is the percentage of sets in use, and the second is the percentage of total sets. And these are overnights, which cannot be directly compared to final ratings. So a lot of people who are writing about how the rating compared to, say, Dark Angel's are likely comparing apples and oranges.

No matter how you slice it, I would think the show will need to draw better than a 4.1 overnight on a regular basis to survive. That's about what Buffy and Angel ususally draw, but not good enough for Fox. From what I saw of the show, I suspect it can build an audience if Fox is patient with it, but history indicates that Fox usually is not.

Edit: I got it backwards. Obviously the higher number is the percentage of sets in use, not the percentage of total sets.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:27 AM

I'm confused as to why people use the single number. A 4.1 out of 10 is much different than a 4.1 out of 9 is much different than a 4.1 out of 8.

If you were to put it on a scale of 10, Firefly then got a 5.1 rating. On a scale of 8, it got a 4.1 rating.

Are the rating scales of 10 the common ones? If so, Firefly did much better than a 4.1, instead getting a 5.1?

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:29 AM

As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry:
As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.

That's not how they explain it here... http://www.nielsenmedia.com/terms.htm

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:37 AM

One thing that hurt Firefly in the Silicon Valley area: baseball. Both Fox affiliates were still on the final 2 innings of a Giants-Brewers when 8 PM rolled around. Was another 45 minutes before the show started. Wasn't even a good game -- pity there's no Mercy Rule in pro baseball. I'm sure a lot of people just changed the channel and never came back. Given the high geek quotient in the central California market, that had to hurt!

I think it's a little early to be worrying about ratings. Sure Dark Angel was canceled with similar ratings -- after two full seasons! I'd worry more about network meddling with the show. Some of the characters seem to have forgotten the dialect they spoke in the pilot. And I thought I saw the usual Creeping Niceness.

And of course, the show won't succeed if Whedon spreads himself too thin and can't maintain the quality of the stories. But if that happens, well, it's not something to cry about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:37 AM

MALCOLM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry:
As I understand it, Firefly was watched by 4.1 percent of all households, and 8 percent of those watching TV at the time. It's not a 4.1 out of a possible 8.

You're understanding is correct. Not a great overall ratings start, but Fox is more concerned about the 18-49 demo which it won for the night. We see what the ultimate FF#s look like in the 18-49 demo on Monday.

Damn! I was hoping for at least a 10 share.

-MTS

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:38 AM

In the example they give, channel 2's rating would be a 30/50, compared to Firefly's 4.1/8

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jerry:
In the example they give, channel 2's rating would be a 30/50, compared to Firefly's 4.1/8

OOOOk... That makes sense! *phew* I was getting very confused.

Well, at least I understand the ratings game now.

So, anyway... even though it got a 4.1, it isn't that bad when compared to the others (5.4 and 4.8) There's not all that much difference there... so, I guess it didn't fail that bad at all.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:43 AM

All this talk of an age demographic is kinda ironic. Firefly is sort of the heir of the last big TV western Gunsmoke. Which was cancelled, despite high ratings, because of similar demo issues.

I remember back in the 80s, the network ad people kept St. Elsewhere alive, despite bad ratings. It seemed that the people who did were from the overpriviliged demos, so the show generated the same ad revenue as did the higher-rated shows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
All this talk of an age demographic is kinda ironic. Firefly is sort of the heir of the last big TV western Gunsmoke. Which was cancelled, despite high ratings, because of similar demo issues.

So Gunsmoke wasn't drawing enough viewers from the 18-49 demo? And Firefly is drawing the 18-49 demo, but not getting as many viewers?

That *is* ironic. Well, I guess the demo is very slightly more important than overall ratings... which is a good sign for Firefly, I guess.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 8:59 AM

RINGWRAITH

That's true, it is possible for network shows to last with not-so-good ratings. Look at NBC's Homicide: Life on the Street. A great show (okay, its last 3 seasons sucked) that had terrible ratings but the critics absolutely loved it.

Damn I miss that show. Too bad it fell apart in its final seasons. That's what you get when you try to make the show "hip and sexy."

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:14 AM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

I would think the show will need to draw better than a 4.1 overnight on a regular basis to survive. That's about what Buffy and Angel ususally draw, but not good enough for Fox.

Nitpick: Buffy and Angel's usually numbers are in the 3's (for Buffy) and the 2's for Angel. Buffy's highest rated episode ever was a 4.3. THus I don't think that a 4.1 is "about" what Buffy usually draws (I consider a .5 ratings increase significant enough).

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:24 AM

MILLERNATE

Quote:

. Sure Dark Angel was canceled with similar ratings -- after two full seasons!

Nitpick 2 (the sequel): Actually Dark Angel's ratings in the first season were much better than its second season ratings (so much so that thefutoncritic.com listed Dark Angel as being among the biggest declines between seasons awhile back- not that you can find it since the webmasters have decided to put on hiatus all the actually good stuff about the site). The first season of Dark Angel typically got ratings around 6.0-7.0. Far superior to the ratings it received on its Friday timeslot.

Aside: THese ratings make me sad. They mean that the Dark Angel children, the single most obnoxious fan segment in history, get proven right and they can brag about their

show and its "unjust" cancellation for eternity.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:
THese ratings make me sad. They mean that the Dark Angel children, the single most obnoxious fan segment in history, get proven right and they can brag about their show and its "unjust" cancellation for eternity.

DA fans aren't so bad. They're brighter than Battlestar Gallactica Fans and less pretentious than B5 fans!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:43 AM

RINGWRAITH

Sorry Zicsoft, I'm a B5 fan but I didn't know I was "pretentious."

I don't think we should start getting into peeing contests about which fans are better/worse.

Maybe we should all wear shirts that say "Your TV show sucks" and that way we could all be safe.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:

Nitpick: Buffy and Angel's usually numbers are in the 3's (for Buffy) and the 2's for Angel. Buffy's highest rated episode ever was a 4.3. THus I don't think that a 4.1 is "about" what Buffy usually draws (I consider a .5 ratings increase significant enough).

You appear to be confusing overnights with final ratings. BtVS often scores in the 4's in overnights, and AtS occasionally does. The 4.1 for Firefly is an overnight. Final ratings tend to be lower.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Maybe we should all wear shirts that say "Your TV show sucks" and that way we could all be safe.

Or, we could not just get bent out of shape when somebody says bad things about our favorite TV series.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:41 PM

RINGWRAITH

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Maybe we should all wear shirts that say "Your TV show sucks" and that way we could all be safe.

Or, we could not just get bent out of shape when somebody says bad things about our favorite TV series.

There's a difference between saying you don't like a show and saying fans of such and such a show are "fill in the blank."

Just saying don't lump fans of a particular show into one category.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:34 AM

KAYLEE

Actually Buffy's highest rating was a 6.something something when it debuted on UPN

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 4:19 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Does anyone know how well Fastlane did? Would be interesting to see which of the 3 new series, Fastlane, Firefly, or John Doe is currently the top rated show for FOX.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:33 AM

GTHING

Quote:
Originally posted by millernate:

The first season of Dark Angel typically got ratings around 6.0-7.0. Far superior to the ratings it received on its Friday timeslot.

Let's not forget that Fox heavily promoted Dark Angel as the kind of show it really was - a futuristic action show. When it premiered, viewers actually got what they saw in the previews. That's probably why it was so successful during its first season.

Meanwhile, Fox has done a dreadful job of promoting Firefly. They want viewers to think that it's an ordinary sci-fi adventure. They don't want us to know it's a western. For the trailers, they have taken footage from the show, and they've added sci-fi-type music. Fox hasn't done any justice to Firefly at all. I really believe that's hurting the ratings.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:29 AM

TERAPH

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
Does anyone know how well Fastlane did? Would be interesting to see which of the 3 new series, Fastlane, Firefly, or John Doe is currently the top rated show for FOX.

Fastlane pulled a 6.0/10 according to Zap2It (see http://tv.zap2it.com/news/dailynielsenrankings.html?28094) which put it in second place behind The West Wing (at 6.6/11).

The high rating for John Doe is encouraging on one front: it means people might be home for Firefly. Now they just need to watch it. Unfortunately, it is competing with 48 Hours for some demographics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:08 PM

PANDORA

Fastlane, as I recall, is on Wednesday... traditionally a much better night for TV than the dreaded Friday.

(Of course, Fox will always get behind T&A and flashy cars before sci fi, as evidenced by their full on support of Melrose Place, 90210, and other shows of their ilk).

For Friday, such ratings aren't *so* bad. We can probably expect an increase if some buzz manages to get generated. As far as competition with 48 hours... well, it doesn't seem like the two shows will be exchanging viewers all that often.

I believe in Firefly. I believe in its quality and I believe in its success. It deserves to survive, and so I can only hope it will. And who knows? If it doesn't, maybe UPN will pick it up...

UPN.

Pandora
I believe!

"Computer games don't affect kids negatively; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

-Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc.
1988

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:40 AM

MALCOLM

Good ratings news!

FF won the all important 18-49 demo for Friday night at 8pm with a 3.0/11.

Fox also won the night for the demo. As they are a "young" net, they don't worry too much about the older demo (ala CBS).

Hopefully, FF can build on the premiere numbers with "Bushwhacked."

-MBS

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:45 AM

Quote:
I believe in Firefly. I believe in its quality and I believe in its success. It deserves to survive, and so I can only hope it will. And who knows? If it doesn't, maybe UPN will pick it up...

I believe too, mainly because Joss Whedon has managed to defeat Hollywood's enforced dumbness before. I doubt if UPN will pick up another expensive series though, from Joss Whedon or anybody else. Rumor has it that the Buffy deal ate up all their profits for the forseeable future!

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:59 AM

That it won the target demo is its lone saving grace. According to the futoncritic.com, ratings dropped off a bit in the second hour -- viewers tuned in, then rejected it. By comparison, John Doe's second half ratings increased.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
That it won the target demo is its lone saving grace. According to the futoncritic.com, ratings dropped off a bit in the second hour -- viewers tuned in, then rejected it. By comparison, John Doe's second half ratings increased.

Now that's disturbing. Indicates that a lot of viewers aren't excited by the more challenging elements of the show. Oh well, maybe it will develop a buzz because it's a challenging show. People will get into arguments at the water cooler -- much like the arguments we've been having here over guns and tech and such. And that will force combatents on both sides to continue tuning in, for fresh ammunition. No pun intended!

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Oh well, maybe it will develop a buzz because it's a challenging show. People will get into arguments at the water cooler -- much like the arguments we've been having here over guns and tech and such. And that will force combatents on both sides to continue tuning in, for fresh ammunition.

Geez. And I thought I was optimistic! Or used to be. I don't have that much faith in the mainstream, anymore.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 12:02 PM

I don't have faith in the mainstream. I have hope for the mainstream. You can be cynical about ordinary people, and never be disappointed. Or you hope people will push beyond their accepted limits. Usually you will be disappointed, but is that enough reason to give up hope?

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:12 PM

DEAN

Just to give you guys some info on the ratings system. A 4.1/9 means that our show was viewed by 4.1 million viewers. The second part means that out of all the TVs on at the time it got a 9 share which means 9% of the people watching TV were watching Firefly. A 6.0 is pretty good numbers for a Fox show at 9pm. I haven't seen that big of a number at that timeslot since they used to have Sliders/The X-Files back in 96. Fox seems to be doing better this season than last year at this timeslot when they had Dark Angel/Pasadina. The bottom line is that if any show on fox averages lower a 5.5 that show will get cut.

Just hope that the ratings in FF get higher than this or it wont last passed September. If you remember they canceled Harsh Realm in only 3 or 4 episodes and the Visitor got 7.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:11 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean:
Just to give you guys some info on the ratings system. A 4.1/9 means that our show was viewed by 4.1 million viewers.

By saying our show, are you implying that you work for FOX? Or are you saying our as in we the fans?

And is the critical 5.5 average for the entire season? Am I to assume that should Firefly not exceed that average at the end of its 13 episodes run, the series won't be renewed?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:20 PM

Good grief, you folks, have faith!

The worst that will happen is that either SciFi or USA will pick it up. Stop singing the requiem mass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:26 PM

MISTERELBERT

New Poster~!

Just wanted to add something.

It's something that Provadince, 48 hours, Fastlane, or John Doe can say they are better.

It is a large resource that has not been tapped, yet, but will be, and will bring millions (hopefully) to Fox if Firefly continues. I'm sure Fox knows this, and will give Firefly a chance.

Merchandising.

Toys, posters, comic books, lunch boxes, computer games, (potential for a movie, although Whedon stayed far away from that idea with Buffy). Not only is it a viable option for Firefly, but the Firefly audience WILL buy those things. (maybe not comic books so much, with the falling market).

Who would buy a Fastlane lunch box? Who'd get Providence action figures? A 48 hours movie?

Dark Angel didn't have the potential that Firefly does for this. What were there, 3 central chacters to build from? How about 9 main characters and many supporting?!?

The only problem with this is, Fox has to think that ratings that are not that impressive will pull in more misc. profit to compensate.

Just my thought.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:36 PM

MALCOLM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
That it won the target demo is its lone saving grace. According to the futoncritic.com, ratings dropped off a bit in the second hour -- viewers tuned in, then rejected it. By comparison, John Doe's second half ratings increased.

--- Joe

Update: In the final - "hard" - numbers FF held an 11 share (18-49) for the entire hour, with a slight drop in the number of households from 8-8:30 to 8:30-9:00.

That means the number of households viewing the show dropped in exact proportion to the overall number of tv households that turned off their TVs for what ever reason.

Slightly better than first reported, but not as good as John Doe which had big numbers and increased in the second half hour.

-MBS

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:49 PM

The worst that will happen is that Sci-Fi or USA will pick it up? No. Hell, that's barely a remote possibility. Let's be realistic, here.

The worst that can happen has befallen past FOX fridays shows -- it gets canned before its initial order even finishes airing.

Now, I don't think this will happen. It will at least get to squeeze out it's full order of 13. And FOX may even renew it for the full season. But if its audience doesn't grow, it will not be back for year two.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:53 PM

Aw darn it, I guess I can't use the phrase
"I've never been faulted for being optimistic"
ever again...

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
The worst that will happen is that Sci-Fi or USA will pick it up? No. Hell, that's barely a remote possibility. Let's be realistic, here.

The worst that can happen has befallen past FOX fridays shows -- it gets canned before its initial order even finishes airing.

Now, I don't think this will happen. It will at least get to squeeze out it's full order of 13. And FOX may even renew it for the full season. But if its audience doesn't grow, it will not be back for year two.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:53 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

The real test of whether Firefly has any staying power at all is this Friday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:02 PM

Does the ratings include only TV viewing?

Oh well, I guess internet "viewing" probably doesn't count, eh?

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
The real test of whether Firefly has any staying power at all is this Friday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:42 PM

Firefly won't be picked up by a cable network, because it's too expensive. And it won't get picked up by anyone if it gets dropped after the initial 13 episode commitment. If it makes it through a full season and doesn't make the grade for Fox, I suppose it could appeal to the WB or, more likely, UPN. But that's not really relevant at the moment.

Joss's other shows generate a lot of revenue for Fox in ways not directly related to US broadcast rights - DVD's, merchandising, and unusually high popularity overseas. All that stuff will help this show if it's on the bubble. But first it needs to get onto the bubble, and it probably has about four episodes to get there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:18 PM

I wonder if FIREFLY would have much overseas appeal. Westerns are a distinctly American genre. The "Myth of the Frontier" is something that is engrained in American conciousness. I don't know the foreigners "get" that. Do Europeans watch Westerns?

And also the science fiction element. FARSCAPE's creator, explaining why Australia wasn't broadcasting his show even though it was bloody filmed there, said that sci-fi, while a niche in the U.S., is a staple because of our space program. Aussies didn't experience that on the same level that Americans did, and thus aren't too "into" aliens and spaceships and the whatnot. NASA (along with Cold War paranoia) inspired Sci-Fi and its fans as much as the American frontier inspired Westerns and its fans.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--- Joe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:29 PM

You may be right about Europe, although I would think Australia would go for the Western. It's more or less a frontier culture as much as America is, and it's hard to find a SF film that's as Western-themed as "The Road Warrior".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:40 PM

DEAN

Hey Haken what's up. Well, I don't work for Fox as of yet but I do check out the ratings every week to see how shows are doing. Since Firefly airs on Fridays I will say that every new episode that airs at 8pm needs to get an average of at least 5.0/8 or higher to be brought for another season or even a midseason show. Because since Fox moved the X-Files the ratings have not been great. Most people stopped watching Fox on Fridays ever since they put Millennium on the air which had very poor ratings. I now think that Fox will air the show until the end of the year if it does continues to do bad and air the last of the episodes in the summer like they did with Freakylinks. Lets hope that this Fridays episode does over a 5.0/8 and builds from it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:13 PM