'

Heroes Ratings 2007-2008

Categories: '

Written By

November 18th, 2007

Heroes

Date Aired Heroes Episode HH Ratings / Share Total Viewers (Million) Viewers 18-49 (Million) Viewers 18-34 (Million) Viewers 25-54 (Million)
09/24/2007 Four Months Later 9.9/14 16.97 9.58 5.33 9.61
10/01/2007 Lizards 7.0/10 11.96 7.26 4.04 7.33
10/08/2007 Kindred 6.5/9 10.91 6.67 3.69 6.66
10/15/2007 The Kindness of Strangers 6.8/10 11.41 6.80 3.81 6.70
10/22/2007 Fight or Flight* 5.6/8 9.44 5.31 3.14 5.09
10/29/2007 The Line 6.1/9 10.51 6.46 3.74 6.09
11/05/2007 Out of Time 6.1/9 9.88 6.46 3.65 5.94
11/12/2007 Four Months Ago... 6.6/10 11.16 6.76 3.83 6.68
11/19/2007 Cautionary Tales 6.6/10 10.81 6.63 3.61 6.49
11/26/2007 Truth & Consequences 6.7/10 11.89 6.92 3.88 6.74
12/03/2007 Powerless 6.5/9 11.06 6.60 3.61 6.47

If you're interested in Heroes ratings, bookmark this page. We'll update it each week during the 2007-2008 season.

All ratings are LIVE+SD (Same Day DVR usage) unless otherwise indicated

** Ratings info for the 10/22/07 episode is for LIVE ratings only

Nielsen Ratings Data: ©2007 Nielsen Media Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 
  • Pete

    Wow, Poli certainly has investigated Tim Kring, good luck on your documentary. It's too bad Mr. Kring didn't steal, allegedly, more ideas when he created Heroes, because he certainly hasn't managed to keep up the creativity on his show. The first volume started out good but then became inconsistent and ended on a weak note. And the second volume has been a joke. Almost all the main characters just to repeat themselves in volume two learning nothing from their mistakes, Peter struggled to figure out what was happening to him, Claire rebelled against HRG, Nikki struggled with her alter ego, etc etc but they were now in different locations. Boring! And the new characters that were brought in only succeeded in weakening the show with their useless and repetitive side stories which dragged the pace down and did not give the kind of momentum needed to push a main storyline of such magnitude. Based on what we have gotten so far from Kring and his staff there really isn't any need to watch Volume III. Time Kring is the master of Illusion not a good story teller. He creates the most amazing hype every week for Heroes but the episodes end up to be duds, more often than not. Kring should spend less time using other people's ideas, allegedly…and coming up with cool catch phrases like, “Save the Cheerleader” to hook in loyal viewers. Then he could spend more time on the actual writing that goes into each episode. Because there's just no point enticing the viewer if you aren't going to deliver a quality product, they won't stay around.

  • Pete

    Wow, Poli certainly has investigated Tim Kring, good luck on your documentary. It’s too bad Mr. Kring didn’t steal, allegedly, more ideas when he created Heroes, because he certainly hasn’t managed to keep up the creativity on his show. The first volume started out good but then became inconsistent and ended on a weak note. And the second volume has been a joke. Almost all the main characters just to repeat themselves in volume two learning nothing from their mistakes, Peter struggled to figure out what was happening to him, Claire rebelled against HRG, Nikki struggled with her alter ego, etc etc but they were now in different locations. Boring! And the new characters that were brought in only succeeded in weakening the show with their useless and repetitive side stories which dragged the pace down and did not give the kind of momentum needed to push a main storyline of such magnitude. Based on what we have gotten so far from Kring and his staff there really isn’t any need to watch Volume III. Time Kring is the master of Illusion not a good story teller. He creates the most amazing hype every week for Heroes but the episodes end up to be duds, more often than not. Kring should spend less time using other people’s ideas, allegedly…and coming up with cool catch phrases like, “Save the Cheerleader” to hook in loyal viewers. Then he could spend more time on the actual writing that goes into each episode. Because there’s just no point enticing the viewer if you aren’t going to deliver a quality product, they won’t stay around.

  • Rena Moretti

    I'll make a point that people are usually completely unaware of:

    Ideas are not copyrightable.

    That's right. You can't copyright an idea.

    The reason? Ideas are a dime a dozen. Literally. It's all in the execution.

    If the ratings are going down it's because the show's not all that good (at least in my humble opinion). I don't think it ever was, but the marketing campaign was clever and got a lot of people hooked.

    They're slowly realizing that this show is more hype than anything (shades of Lost).

  • Rena Moretti

    I’ll make a point that people are usually completely unaware of:

    Ideas are not copyrightable.

    That’s right. You can’t copyright an idea.

    The reason? Ideas are a dime a dozen. Literally. It’s all in the execution.

    If the ratings are going down it’s because the show’s not all that good (at least in my humble opinion). I don’t think it ever was, but the marketing campaign was clever and got a lot of people hooked.

    They’re slowly realizing that this show is more hype than anything (shades of Lost).

  • Rachel Holland

    I'm sorry. I have to say something here. Seasoned lurker that I am, I mostly glance at what people write online about shows and novels, as I am a writer of both. Kring, in all probability, did nothing wrong. An idea like “a painter who paints the future” is not only already “in the air” in an era of television shows, films, and books about psychics and dreamers and even people who can create a reality by painting or drawing or dreaming it, such an idea is already present in prior projects. The fact that these two think they came up with it on their own, prior to Kring or not, just proves that they don't read enough to have noticed how many variations of that story already exist. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming to have invented the vampire with a guilty conscience or the corrupt politician who is defeated at the last second just before he destroys the world. No offense intended here but the lawsuit, the accusations, the whole deal is not a “cause” worthy of anyone's attention. Kring is no genius but he is no criminal either and while the decline in the quality of the show may be, in part, due to the stress of the suit, it is far more likely that this decline is due to Kring's desire to branch out and include new characters that no one cares about. Also, as per Crossing Jordan, Kring has never been very good at developing the really evil characters who are made interesting to the viewer not by adding lots of people for them to kill but by illustrating the tendency for the bad among us to walk the line between the darkness and that glimmer of light and hope waiting to redeem them if only they would let it. The show really doesn't have anywhere to go as long as it's characters behave in a schizophrenic fashion, changing their personalities to suit whatever storyline Kring feels like trying out next. If you need someone to worry about, leave the court-loving nutters behind and concentrate of the environment or puppies or something. Everybody loves puppies.

  • Rachel Holland

    I’m sorry. I have to say something here. Seasoned lurker that I am, I mostly glance at what people write online about shows and novels, as I am a writer of both. Kring, in all probability, did nothing wrong. An idea like “a painter who paints the future” is not only already “in the air” in an era of television shows, films, and books about psychics and dreamers and even people who can create a reality by painting or drawing or dreaming it, such an idea is already present in prior projects. The fact that these two think they came up with it on their own, prior to Kring or not, just proves that they don’t read enough to have noticed how many variations of that story already exist. Next thing you know, they’ll be claiming to have invented the vampire with a guilty conscience or the corrupt politician who is defeated at the last second just before he destroys the world. No offense intended here but the lawsuit, the accusations, the whole deal is not a “cause” worthy of anyone’s attention. Kring is no genius but he is no criminal either and while the decline in the quality of the show may be, in part, due to the stress of the suit, it is far more likely that this decline is due to Kring’s desire to branch out and include new characters that no one cares about. Also, as per Crossing Jordan, Kring has never been very good at developing the really evil characters who are made interesting to the viewer not by adding lots of people for them to kill but by illustrating the tendency for the bad among us to walk the line between the darkness and that glimmer of light and hope waiting to redeem them if only they would let it. The show really doesn’t have anywhere to go as long as it’s characters behave in a schizophrenic fashion, changing their personalities to suit whatever storyline Kring feels like trying out next. If you need someone to worry about, leave the court-loving nutters behind and concentrate of the environment or puppies or something. Everybody loves puppies.

  • I Dislike Stupid People

    POLI, I would recommend that you spend some of that babysitting money on law school so that you can actually put together a basis for an argument that's valid instead of spewing off non-sense.

    The concept of a “painter who paints the future” is not able to be copyrighted. If Tim or anyone else wants to make a show about it, they can do so, and they can do it legally. If Tim wants to create a show about a group of 6 friends living in NYC together (“Friends”), a group of buddies and the bar they frequent (“Cheers”), a crime scene drama that uses evidence in-depth (CSI), etc…he can do so. Is it original? YES, IT IS. He's creating his own characters, own relationships, own story lines that evolve, etc. That's the originality, and it's not copyright infringement.

    OH, wait…OMG! OMG! ABC made a drama about the doctors that work at a hospital and their relationships and lives trials (“Grey's Anatomy”). The creators of E.R. should sue! Oh wait…THEY CAN'T.

    I guess in your eyes every pop star is violating copyright law and “stealing others work” when they sing about their failed relationships or the love of their life, or every country star is making money off another when they sing about drinking and their wives leaving them, or every rapper is a “thief” for singing about money, women, etc.

    Get a grip and get a clue. If anyone is trying to make money off others, it's people like you trying to make documentaries about people and things you have/had no involvement in, trying to bank off the popularity of the show for your own personal interest and gain.

  • I Dislike Stupid People

    POLI, I would recommend that you spend some of that babysitting money on law school so that you can actually put together a basis for an argument that’s valid instead of spewing off non-sense.

    The concept of a “painter who paints the future” is not able to be copyrighted. If Tim or anyone else wants to make a show about it, they can do so, and they can do it legally. If Tim wants to create a show about a group of 6 friends living in NYC together (“Friends”), a group of buddies and the bar they frequent (“Cheers”), a crime scene drama that uses evidence in-depth (CSI), etc…he can do so. Is it original? YES, IT IS. He’s creating his own characters, own relationships, own story lines that evolve, etc. That’s the originality, and it’s not copyright infringement.

    OH, wait…OMG! OMG! ABC made a drama about the doctors that work at a hospital and their relationships and lives trials (“Grey’s Anatomy”). The creators of E.R. should sue! Oh wait…THEY CAN’T.

    I guess in your eyes every pop star is violating copyright law and “stealing others work” when they sing about their failed relationships or the love of their life, or every country star is making money off another when they sing about drinking and their wives leaving them, or every rapper is a “thief” for singing about money, women, etc.

    Get a grip and get a clue. If anyone is trying to make money off others, it’s people like you trying to make documentaries about people and things you have/had no involvement in, trying to bank off the popularity of the show for your own personal interest and gain.

© 2014 Tribune Digital Ventures