<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Updated Monday Ratings: Chuck idles,  Castle inches up vs. rerun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:15:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Holly</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-19/#comment-80501</link>
		<dc:creator>Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 15:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-80501</guid>
		<description>@Tia, The only reason Friday Night Lights was renewed is the huge check Direct TV is writing for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tia, The only reason Friday Night Lights was renewed is the huge check Direct TV is writing for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tia</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-19/#comment-80500</link>
		<dc:creator>Tia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 15:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-80500</guid>
		<description>Doesn&#039;t Friday Night Lights pull in lower ratings than Chuck? And they&#039;ve been renewed already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t Friday Night Lights pull in lower ratings than Chuck? And they&#8217;ve been renewed already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-19/#comment-78521</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-78521</guid>
		<description>I have to say, I wasn&#039;t born until 1985, but I&#039;ve pretty much seen all the movies from the 80s that Chuck references. And if I haven&#039;t, I&#039;ll look them up and they become relevant to me. So people in their 20s can actually enjoy it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say, I wasn&#8217;t born until 1985, but I&#8217;ve pretty much seen all the movies from the 80s that Chuck references. And if I haven&#8217;t, I&#8217;ll look them up and they become relevant to me. So people in their 20s can actually enjoy it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77613</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77613</guid>
		<description>Nick the problem you’re missing out on here is that all the shows you mentioned pull better numbers than Chuck and have been all season. My argument is that Chuck is at a 1.04 in the renew/cancel index so its facing cancellation my argument is that Chuck has barely passed the 2.5 mark this season and therefore regardless of Leno people are going to be asking questions about its future because as I said I sill don’t think we’re at a point where a show that drops down to a 2.1 consistently is automatically renewed regardless of the network average. I just do not think we’re there yet. 

Like I also said I think the general tone around Chuck is much more positive without Leno in the equation but I still think the shows numbers put it in danger and not Leno. 

And for the record Chuck is in green on the index.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick the problem you’re missing out on here is that all the shows you mentioned pull better numbers than Chuck and have been all season. My argument is that Chuck is at a 1.04 in the renew/cancel index so its facing cancellation my argument is that Chuck has barely passed the 2.5 mark this season and therefore regardless of Leno people are going to be asking questions about its future because as I said I sill don’t think we’re at a point where a show that drops down to a 2.1 consistently is automatically renewed regardless of the network average. I just do not think we’re there yet. </p>
<p>Like I also said I think the general tone around Chuck is much more positive without Leno in the equation but I still think the shows numbers put it in danger and not Leno. </p>
<p>And for the record Chuck is in green on the index.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77377</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77377</guid>
		<description>Alex, there is no way without LENO and knowing what is in the pipeline at NBC that anyone would think CHUCK was in danger.  No way at all.  That 1.04 is well above a .92 and incredibly safe.  The guys who run this site would have it GREEN not orange.  They would also be incredibly confident about their prediction.

It&#039;s numbers.  Numbers don&#039;t lie.  1.04 is &quot;safe,&quot; under normal circumstances.  Right now it isn&#039;t only because of LENO.  The fact that you seem to refuse to accept that is extremely questionable to nearly everyone who reads these comments.  It&#039;s why they think you&#039;re anti-CHUCK because you certainly appear to be.  Reason dictates the show would be safe without LENO, thus the numbers aren&#039;t &quot;bad,&quot; or &quot;awful,&quot; which are both words you&#039;ve used.

If you were being reasonable we&#039;d see you making comments like &quot;PRIVATE PRACTICE is doing bad and if ABC were smart they&#039;d cancel it,&quot; or &quot;CSI:NY is doing bad and if CBS were smart they&#039;d cancel it,&quot; or &quot;AMERICAN DAD and BONES are doing bad and if FOX was smart they&#039;d cancel them.&quot;  Which to my knowledge you&#039;ve never once stated nor likely even believe.  All those shows are incredibly close or in the exact same spot on their network indexes.  You don&#039;t seriously believe there was ever any doubt about those shows?  In fact PRIVATE PRACTICE, AMERICAN DAD, and BONES have all already seen announcements of their renewal or a pickup of episodes for next season.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, there is no way without LENO and knowing what is in the pipeline at NBC that anyone would think CHUCK was in danger.  No way at all.  That 1.04 is well above a .92 and incredibly safe.  The guys who run this site would have it GREEN not orange.  They would also be incredibly confident about their prediction.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s numbers.  Numbers don&#8217;t lie.  1.04 is &#8220;safe,&#8221; under normal circumstances.  Right now it isn&#8217;t only because of LENO.  The fact that you seem to refuse to accept that is extremely questionable to nearly everyone who reads these comments.  It&#8217;s why they think you&#8217;re anti-CHUCK because you certainly appear to be.  Reason dictates the show would be safe without LENO, thus the numbers aren&#8217;t &#8220;bad,&#8221; or &#8220;awful,&#8221; which are both words you&#8217;ve used.</p>
<p>If you were being reasonable we&#8217;d see you making comments like &#8220;PRIVATE PRACTICE is doing bad and if ABC were smart they&#8217;d cancel it,&#8221; or &#8220;CSI:NY is doing bad and if CBS were smart they&#8217;d cancel it,&#8221; or &#8220;AMERICAN DAD and BONES are doing bad and if FOX was smart they&#8217;d cancel them.&#8221;  Which to my knowledge you&#8217;ve never once stated nor likely even believe.  All those shows are incredibly close or in the exact same spot on their network indexes.  You don&#8217;t seriously believe there was ever any doubt about those shows?  In fact PRIVATE PRACTICE, AMERICAN DAD, and BONES have all already seen announcements of their renewal or a pickup of episodes for next season.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77372</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77372</guid>
		<description>Paul 80, I was just on a movie set this week.  I had all manners of drinks and food brought to me by the Director&#039;s PA.  The idea that PAs don&#039;t ask important people that show up on set (to make sure things are running smoothly) if they want anything, and then run off to get it is absurd.  It kind of proves you have no idea what you&#039;re talking about.  When Angela visits the set of CHUCK, you&#039;re telling me nobody asks her if she&#039;d like something?  If that is the case the show is more likely to be canceled than I originally thought.  Rude people leave an impression that stains sets and the projects tied to those sets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul 80, I was just on a movie set this week.  I had all manners of drinks and food brought to me by the Director&#8217;s PA.  The idea that PAs don&#8217;t ask important people that show up on set (to make sure things are running smoothly) if they want anything, and then run off to get it is absurd.  It kind of proves you have no idea what you&#8217;re talking about.  When Angela visits the set of CHUCK, you&#8217;re telling me nobody asks her if she&#8217;d like something?  If that is the case the show is more likely to be canceled than I originally thought.  Rude people leave an impression that stains sets and the projects tied to those sets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77228</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:14:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77228</guid>
		<description>Oh and Paul I can tell you that PA&#039;s get coffee on more than just commercial sets. At least they do over here and I can&#039;t imagine there&#039;s that much difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh and Paul I can tell you that PA&#8217;s get coffee on more than just commercial sets. At least they do over here and I can&#8217;t imagine there&#8217;s that much difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77225</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77225</guid>
		<description>&quot;Please, please, please explain to me how a show that is 1.04 in the renew/cancel index here would be a bubble show when shows above .92 are considered safe.&quot;

What show do you think is safe that falls into the above .92 but below 1.04? The only one that I can see is Law &amp; Order (although that isn&#039;t above .92) but I did include that in the shows along with Chuck and Medium that would be on the bubble regardless of Leno and the only reason Law &amp; Order is viewed as &#039;safe&#039; is because next year is season 20, which isn&#039;t something any other show on any schedule has going for it. That&#039;s about as unique a situation as you&#039;re going to get for renew/cancel debates.

As it stands though I don&#039;t think anything under a 2.5 should be cancelled, I think anything under a 2.5 needs to be looked at as in danger because unless its Law &amp; Order and heading into season 20 or a cheap 30 minute sitcom it probably is in danger. I&#039;m not oblivous to falling ratings across the board Nick I just don&#039;t think we&#039;re quite in the position where something below a 2.5 is automatically greenlit for another season. 

As I think I said (and if I didn&#039;t I meant to) without Leno the general tone regarding Chuck&#039;s future would be much more positive but I still think people would be questioning whether or not it gets a third season because its numbers put it on the bubble not Leno.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Please, please, please explain to me how a show that is 1.04 in the renew/cancel index here would be a bubble show when shows above .92 are considered safe.&#8221;</p>
<p>What show do you think is safe that falls into the above .92 but below 1.04? The only one that I can see is Law &amp; Order (although that isn&#8217;t above .92) but I did include that in the shows along with Chuck and Medium that would be on the bubble regardless of Leno and the only reason Law &amp; Order is viewed as &#8216;safe&#8217; is because next year is season 20, which isn&#8217;t something any other show on any schedule has going for it. That&#8217;s about as unique a situation as you&#8217;re going to get for renew/cancel debates.</p>
<p>As it stands though I don&#8217;t think anything under a 2.5 should be cancelled, I think anything under a 2.5 needs to be looked at as in danger because unless its Law &amp; Order and heading into season 20 or a cheap 30 minute sitcom it probably is in danger. I&#8217;m not oblivous to falling ratings across the board Nick I just don&#8217;t think we&#8217;re quite in the position where something below a 2.5 is automatically greenlit for another season. </p>
<p>As I think I said (and if I didn&#8217;t I meant to) without Leno the general tone regarding Chuck&#8217;s future would be much more positive but I still think people would be questioning whether or not it gets a third season because its numbers put it on the bubble not Leno.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul 80</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77221</link>
		<dc:creator>paul 80</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77221</guid>
		<description>Nick- The only sets that PAs get coffee for visitors, are on commercials.

So you most be a Ad Agency assistant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick- The only sets that PAs get coffee for visitors, are on commercials.</p>
<p>So you most be a Ad Agency assistant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77070</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77070</guid>
		<description>Chuck keeps getting better and better. Hope it&#039;s renewed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chuck keeps getting better and better. Hope it&#8217;s renewed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-77069</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-77069</guid>
		<description>Alex, you just proved you aren&#039;t being reasonable about this at all.  Please, please, please explain to me how a show that is 1.04 in the renew/cancel index here would be a bubble show when shows above .92 are considered safe.

The FACT is it wouldn&#039;t be a bubble show at all.  You refuse to admit it because you live in the past where anything under a 2.5 should be canceled.  That is the same world I used to live in, but reality is that those numbers are continuing to drop.  We can&#039;t think &quot;anything less than 2.5 is bad,&quot; when we&#039;re also no longer seeing regular shows well above the 5.0 mark.  We&#039;re not seeing the successes of the past either.  It&#039;s a different world and you obviously refuse to accept it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, you just proved you aren&#8217;t being reasonable about this at all.  Please, please, please explain to me how a show that is 1.04 in the renew/cancel index here would be a bubble show when shows above .92 are considered safe.</p>
<p>The FACT is it wouldn&#8217;t be a bubble show at all.  You refuse to admit it because you live in the past where anything under a 2.5 should be canceled.  That is the same world I used to live in, but reality is that those numbers are continuing to drop.  We can&#8217;t think &#8220;anything less than 2.5 is bad,&#8221; when we&#8217;re also no longer seeing regular shows well above the 5.0 mark.  We&#8217;re not seeing the successes of the past either.  It&#8217;s a different world and you obviously refuse to accept it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76925</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:22:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76925</guid>
		<description>Bruce for the same reason they didn&#039;t cancel the worse performing Life or the just about equally performing Medium or the bleeding Heroes - there are only so many Law &amp; Order franchise repeats you can run in a week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce for the same reason they didn&#8217;t cancel the worse performing Life or the just about equally performing Medium or the bleeding Heroes &#8211; there are only so many Law &amp; Order franchise repeats you can run in a week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce W.</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76864</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:42:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76864</guid>
		<description>Alex says: &quot;Again, Chuck isn’t in trouble because of Leno its in trouble because of its performance this season.&quot;

Well then, why hasn&#039;t NBC already canceled Chuck then? The ratings for Chuck have stayed pretty consistent the second half of this season. They weren&#039;t getting any better or worse. What were they waiting for?

If they do cancel Chuck, good luck to whatever show they put there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex says: &#8220;Again, Chuck isn’t in trouble because of Leno its in trouble because of its performance this season.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well then, why hasn&#8217;t NBC already canceled Chuck then? The ratings for Chuck have stayed pretty consistent the second half of this season. They weren&#8217;t getting any better or worse. What were they waiting for?</p>
<p>If they do cancel Chuck, good luck to whatever show they put there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76843</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76843</guid>
		<description>&quot;Would CHUCK be on the bubble if Leno wasn’t taking 5 slots?&quot;

Yes.

Again, Chuck isn’t in trouble because of Leno its in trouble because of its performance this season. 

You can try and argue that without Leno Chuck sails through to a third season and that the likes of Lipstick Jungle or Life become bubble shows for NBC but that’s borderline ridiculous. With or without Leno Lipstick Jungle and shows like it are gone just like with or without Leno Chuck, Medium and Law &amp; Order are on the borderline of renewal. 

I don’t think fans of Chuck would be anywhere near as worried as they are now for Chuck without Leno because NBC don’t have to work anywhere near as hard to find a way to make it work. Ultimately the only difference Leno is truly making to Chuck’s future is that now if NBC want to bring it back they have to work harder to find a way to make it work. With or without Leno Chuck’s right on the network average and people are questioning whether NBC should bring it back or not.

Again, Leno is an excuse for Chuck and nothing else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Would CHUCK be on the bubble if Leno wasn’t taking 5 slots?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Again, Chuck isn’t in trouble because of Leno its in trouble because of its performance this season. </p>
<p>You can try and argue that without Leno Chuck sails through to a third season and that the likes of Lipstick Jungle or Life become bubble shows for NBC but that’s borderline ridiculous. With or without Leno Lipstick Jungle and shows like it are gone just like with or without Leno Chuck, Medium and Law &amp; Order are on the borderline of renewal. </p>
<p>I don’t think fans of Chuck would be anywhere near as worried as they are now for Chuck without Leno because NBC don’t have to work anywhere near as hard to find a way to make it work. Ultimately the only difference Leno is truly making to Chuck’s future is that now if NBC want to bring it back they have to work harder to find a way to make it work. With or without Leno Chuck’s right on the network average and people are questioning whether NBC should bring it back or not.</p>
<p>Again, Leno is an excuse for Chuck and nothing else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djm</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76838</link>
		<dc:creator>djm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76838</guid>
		<description>geeze-lay off nick C guys....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>geeze-lay off nick C guys&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76834</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76834</guid>
		<description>Alex, answer this question:

Would CHUCK be on the bubble if Leno wasn&#039;t taking 5 slots?

The answer is no.  So the numbers aren&#039;t bad.  If the numbers were bad, poor, or even sub par the show wouldn&#039;t even be a bubble show this season.  No bad, poor, or sub par show is lucky enough to be on the bubble for NBC this season.  With the new loss of time slots they&#039;re already canceled. Just ask Brooke Shields.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, answer this question:</p>
<p>Would CHUCK be on the bubble if Leno wasn&#8217;t taking 5 slots?</p>
<p>The answer is no.  So the numbers aren&#8217;t bad.  If the numbers were bad, poor, or even sub par the show wouldn&#8217;t even be a bubble show this season.  No bad, poor, or sub par show is lucky enough to be on the bubble for NBC this season.  With the new loss of time slots they&#8217;re already canceled. Just ask Brooke Shields.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76832</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76832</guid>
		<description>Paul80,

&quot;Besides CHUCKS productions offices have been closed since March 24.&quot;

Yes, but what does that have to do with someone involved in a limited manner to DIRTY SEXY MONEY asking me to call their production offices to prove they&#039;re legit and call me a liar?  I don&#039;t see how that relates.  I ended up very much right then, and I&#039;m sure I&#039;m more in the loop than 98% of all people tied to these shows.  

&quot; Maybe you could call Josh at home he really is a very approachable guy.&quot;

Email is easier.

&quot;Nick, I really get the feeling that your a well education guy,&quot;

I get the idea you&#039;re not.  That would be &quot;well educated guy,&quot; and not &quot;well education guy.&quot;

&quot;Someday if you stay focused you will get out of that PA loop your stuck in.&quot;

That would also be &quot;you&#039;re,&quot; and not &quot;your.&quot;  I&#039;m also sure you&#039;re just like the DIRTY SEXY MONEY idiot that was on here in November.  You&#039;re in a low end job on set, but highly uneducated.  Like them you have no real ability to express the English language in any kind of educated manner.  Plus, it&#039;s a common reply from little people to say someone is &quot;just a PA,&quot; or to belittle PAs.  PAs work their ass off, and I wouldn&#039;t have received some damn nice coffee without them when I visited sets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul80,</p>
<p>&#8220;Besides CHUCKS productions offices have been closed since March 24.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, but what does that have to do with someone involved in a limited manner to DIRTY SEXY MONEY asking me to call their production offices to prove they&#8217;re legit and call me a liar?  I don&#8217;t see how that relates.  I ended up very much right then, and I&#8217;m sure I&#8217;m more in the loop than 98% of all people tied to these shows.  </p>
<p>&#8221; Maybe you could call Josh at home he really is a very approachable guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Email is easier.</p>
<p>&#8220;Nick, I really get the feeling that your a well education guy,&#8221;</p>
<p>I get the idea you&#8217;re not.  That would be &#8220;well educated guy,&#8221; and not &#8220;well education guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Someday if you stay focused you will get out of that PA loop your stuck in.&#8221;</p>
<p>That would also be &#8220;you&#8217;re,&#8221; and not &#8220;your.&#8221;  I&#8217;m also sure you&#8217;re just like the DIRTY SEXY MONEY idiot that was on here in November.  You&#8217;re in a low end job on set, but highly uneducated.  Like them you have no real ability to express the English language in any kind of educated manner.  Plus, it&#8217;s a common reply from little people to say someone is &#8220;just a PA,&#8221; or to belittle PAs.  PAs work their ass off, and I wouldn&#8217;t have received some damn nice coffee without them when I visited sets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KellyH</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76822</link>
		<dc:creator>KellyH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76822</guid>
		<description>Much MORE fan devotion, I should say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Much MORE fan devotion, I should say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KellyH</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76821</link>
		<dc:creator>KellyH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76821</guid>
		<description>Jon L, that fact is evidence in favor of NBC renewing &quot;Chuck.&quot;  It has similar numbers to their other bubble shows, but not nearly the fan devotion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon L, that fact is evidence in favor of NBC renewing &#8220;Chuck.&#8221;  It has similar numbers to their other bubble shows, but not nearly the fan devotion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon L</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76727</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon L</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:53:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76727</guid>
		<description>Wow. I&#039;ve only recently started coming to this site, but that&#039;s gotta be the largest number of comments I&#039;ve seen for an article yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. I&#8217;ve only recently started coming to this site, but that&#8217;s gotta be the largest number of comments I&#8217;ve seen for an article yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KellyH</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76658</link>
		<dc:creator>KellyH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76658</guid>
		<description>All of these questions about &quot;why&quot; Chuck&#039;s ratings aren&#039;t better are very strange, as is the detailed analysis.  This is really simple.  It has a terrible timeslot against DWTS, House, and the CBS comedies.  What&#039;s the mystery here?  That&#039;s the answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All of these questions about &#8220;why&#8221; Chuck&#8217;s ratings aren&#8217;t better are very strange, as is the detailed analysis.  This is really simple.  It has a terrible timeslot against DWTS, House, and the CBS comedies.  What&#8217;s the mystery here?  That&#8217;s the answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76514</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76514</guid>
		<description>JT any ‘game changing’ elements that the producers may or may not be introducing in the finale NBC will be aware how long and detailed that awareness was is another issue. Like I said that NBC listened to pitches for season three simply means that they were at least entertaining the idea of a third season and wanted to know where the producers intended to take it in a third season unfortunately for Chuck fans it doesn’t mean anything more than that. I don’t think the ‘game changing’ finale had anything to do with NBC asking for story pitches, they would have done it regardless of that.

I’ll also point out that the danger of writing a game changing episode is that by its very nature it completely changes the show so you risk alienating the network who brought show x by turning it into show y. On that note I’m struggling off the top of my head to name a show that’s done a bi game changing concept and lived much longer. I’d imagine there’s some out there I just can’t think of any right now, I’m sure a Chuck fan will bombard me with them at some point.

Bill to a degree I agree with what you’re saying but like I said I think NBC have made their decision and I think the only way that decision changes now is if the numbers for the finale are dramatically different from what people expect and NBC opts to take another look at the show because of them. I suspect we’re at the point where Warner’s have gone as low as they’ll go and that NBC knows how their pilots are shaping up unless something happens on Monday for everyone to re-evaluate their positions. For the record I’m not saying that NBC have decided to axe the show I’m just saying I think they’ve made their decision one way or the other at this point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JT any ‘game changing’ elements that the producers may or may not be introducing in the finale NBC will be aware how long and detailed that awareness was is another issue. Like I said that NBC listened to pitches for season three simply means that they were at least entertaining the idea of a third season and wanted to know where the producers intended to take it in a third season unfortunately for Chuck fans it doesn’t mean anything more than that. I don’t think the ‘game changing’ finale had anything to do with NBC asking for story pitches, they would have done it regardless of that.</p>
<p>I’ll also point out that the danger of writing a game changing episode is that by its very nature it completely changes the show so you risk alienating the network who brought show x by turning it into show y. On that note I’m struggling off the top of my head to name a show that’s done a bi game changing concept and lived much longer. I’d imagine there’s some out there I just can’t think of any right now, I’m sure a Chuck fan will bombard me with them at some point.</p>
<p>Bill to a degree I agree with what you’re saying but like I said I think NBC have made their decision and I think the only way that decision changes now is if the numbers for the finale are dramatically different from what people expect and NBC opts to take another look at the show because of them. I suspect we’re at the point where Warner’s have gone as low as they’ll go and that NBC knows how their pilots are shaping up unless something happens on Monday for everyone to re-evaluate their positions. For the record I’m not saying that NBC have decided to axe the show I’m just saying I think they’ve made their decision one way or the other at this point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JT</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76382</link>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76382</guid>
		<description>Alex, he mentioned it in a recent interview and made reference to the fact that the meetings had taken place within a few days of the interview.  I&#039;ll have to dig but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s been that long.  I would almost guarantee they wanted to know more about Season 3 because they knew what they were going to do at the end of 2.  I don&#039;t think a radical change, which I really don&#039;t think is going to happen, would be something the studio didn&#039;t know about already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, he mentioned it in a recent interview and made reference to the fact that the meetings had taken place within a few days of the interview.  I&#8217;ll have to dig but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s been that long.  I would almost guarantee they wanted to know more about Season 3 because they knew what they were going to do at the end of 2.  I don&#8217;t think a radical change, which I really don&#8217;t think is going to happen, would be something the studio didn&#8217;t know about already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-18/#comment-76291</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:26:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76291</guid>
		<description>Alex, as I have written many times, at this point in the season for any show that premiered in the fall, I think the only new data that is likely to influence their fate is the relative attractiveness of competing pilots and possibly the attractiveness of the deals that producers might offer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, as I have written many times, at this point in the season for any show that premiered in the fall, I think the only new data that is likely to influence their fate is the relative attractiveness of competing pilots and possibly the attractiveness of the deals that producers might offer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julia</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76289</link>
		<dc:creator>Julia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76289</guid>
		<description>I was going to mention Veronica Mars. CW even had him shoot a new pilot for the new direction he had pitched for them. They still didn&#039;t renew the series.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was going to mention Veronica Mars. CW even had him shoot a new pilot for the new direction he had pitched for them. They still didn&#8217;t renew the series.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76286</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76286</guid>
		<description>JT I don&#039;t find it remotely unusual that the producers were asked to and have pitched ideas for another season part of the decision making process when it comes to shows on the bubble, particularly for a show like Chuck is where its heading and where it can head but in no way, shape or form does that pitching (which happened a while ago now) mean its a lock for another season or still under consideration for a new season. I suspect that as it stands NBC has one way or another made their decision on Chuck and only a major numbers change for the finale will change that.

Its also worth remembering that a radical rethink of the show in the finale doesn&#039;t mean much for the future prospects - look at Terminator. From all accounts its finale changed the dynamic and potential future of the direction of the show but still only the hardcore crazies think its coming back next year. Meanwhile a few years ago Rob Thomas pitched a complete rethink of Veronica Mars for a fourth season and it went nowhere. Pitching ideas is a sign that NBC were at least entertaining the idea of bringing Chuck back, its not a sign that they&#039;re still thinking about it. They may very well have hated the season three pitch and decided to axe it because of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JT I don&#8217;t find it remotely unusual that the producers were asked to and have pitched ideas for another season part of the decision making process when it comes to shows on the bubble, particularly for a show like Chuck is where its heading and where it can head but in no way, shape or form does that pitching (which happened a while ago now) mean its a lock for another season or still under consideration for a new season. I suspect that as it stands NBC has one way or another made their decision on Chuck and only a major numbers change for the finale will change that.</p>
<p>Its also worth remembering that a radical rethink of the show in the finale doesn&#8217;t mean much for the future prospects &#8211; look at Terminator. From all accounts its finale changed the dynamic and potential future of the direction of the show but still only the hardcore crazies think its coming back next year. Meanwhile a few years ago Rob Thomas pitched a complete rethink of Veronica Mars for a fourth season and it went nowhere. Pitching ideas is a sign that NBC were at least entertaining the idea of bringing Chuck back, its not a sign that they&#8217;re still thinking about it. They may very well have hated the season three pitch and decided to axe it because of that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JT</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76271</link>
		<dc:creator>JT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76271</guid>
		<description>Nick C, Julia, Alex:

Has anyone considered the fact that JS said in an interview that he and CF have already pitched Season 3 stories to NBC?  If it was a guaranteed goner, then why would they even ask them to pitch story lines?  The network likes the show, yet has dropped the ball on promoting it.  I think they find themselves in a strange position having picked up Leno just to prevent someone else from doing it.  I agree with others who think his show will flop by December and I think it would be smart for Chuck to get the same shot in 13 episodes.  Kill it in December if it continues to plateau.  I think the blow back from canceling it at this point would affect other shows.

Reality is, nobody really knows, and especially people who get information from a third party (NickC I think you said a &quot;contact of a friend&quot;).  I disagree that the numbers are borderline bad, L&amp;O has worse numbers and many have predicted it will get a 20th season just because it&#039;s at 19.  If numbers really matter it should be gone which would leave room cor Chuck, Medium, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick C, Julia, Alex:</p>
<p>Has anyone considered the fact that JS said in an interview that he and CF have already pitched Season 3 stories to NBC?  If it was a guaranteed goner, then why would they even ask them to pitch story lines?  The network likes the show, yet has dropped the ball on promoting it.  I think they find themselves in a strange position having picked up Leno just to prevent someone else from doing it.  I agree with others who think his show will flop by December and I think it would be smart for Chuck to get the same shot in 13 episodes.  Kill it in December if it continues to plateau.  I think the blow back from canceling it at this point would affect other shows.</p>
<p>Reality is, nobody really knows, and especially people who get information from a third party (NickC I think you said a &#8220;contact of a friend&#8221;).  I disagree that the numbers are borderline bad, L&amp;O has worse numbers and many have predicted it will get a 20th season just because it&#8217;s at 19.  If numbers really matter it should be gone which would leave room cor Chuck, Medium, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76264</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:26:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76264</guid>
		<description>Bruce I understand why people are making Leno the scapegoat for Chuck and its not without merit but my point is that the bottom line is Chuck&#039;s facing the axe because of its numbers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bruce I understand why people are making Leno the scapegoat for Chuck and its not without merit but my point is that the bottom line is Chuck&#8217;s facing the axe because of its numbers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gorman</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76262</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76262</guid>
		<description>jay, remember that as you add up all those numbers for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW and Fox that the audience for broadcast networks is less than 50% of the total TV audience, the majority of prime-time viewing is on cable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>jay, remember that as you add up all those numbers for ABC, CBS, NBC, CW and Fox that the audience for broadcast networks is less than 50% of the total TV audience, the majority of prime-time viewing is on cable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jay</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76259</link>
		<dc:creator>jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76259</guid>
		<description>As per my promise to everyone and noone I&#039;m taking the thirty seconds needed to compare eight, nine and ten and the half hours for 18-49 viewing. Besides the usual almost 50% decline from nine to ten, I saw Dancing with the stars gained at the expense almost certainly of shows on the other nets and that at its peak it significantly beat DH&#039;s peak of 4.9 at nine-thirty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As per my promise to everyone and noone I&#8217;m taking the thirty seconds needed to compare eight, nine and ten and the half hours for 18-49 viewing. Besides the usual almost 50% decline from nine to ten, I saw Dancing with the stars gained at the expense almost certainly of shows on the other nets and that at its peak it significantly beat DH&#8217;s peak of 4.9 at nine-thirty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce W.</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76255</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76255</guid>
		<description>Alex:

The reason people are blaming Leno is because of the money that NBC is throwing at him to stay for his Tonight Show &quot;spinoff&quot; on prime time. Chuck is a &quot;bubble&quot; show that puts up decent numbers in a highly competitive timeslot. If the show was on another network, it would&#039;ve already been canceled. Lucky for Chuck fans like me,it&#039;s on a struggling network called NBC. If you remove the money NBC has set aside for Leno, it could go to Chuck for a short order of episodes. I&#039;d say by Monday night or Tuesday morning the latest, Chuck fans will know the fate of the show.

I&#039;m not a show basher, people have different tastes. I don&#039;t know why some people are bothered by a show&#039;s passionate fanbase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex:</p>
<p>The reason people are blaming Leno is because of the money that NBC is throwing at him to stay for his Tonight Show &#8220;spinoff&#8221; on prime time. Chuck is a &#8220;bubble&#8221; show that puts up decent numbers in a highly competitive timeslot. If the show was on another network, it would&#8217;ve already been canceled. Lucky for Chuck fans like me,it&#8217;s on a struggling network called NBC. If you remove the money NBC has set aside for Leno, it could go to Chuck for a short order of episodes. I&#8217;d say by Monday night or Tuesday morning the latest, Chuck fans will know the fate of the show.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a show basher, people have different tastes. I don&#8217;t know why some people are bothered by a show&#8217;s passionate fanbase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: travis</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76206</link>
		<dc:creator>travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:14:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76206</guid>
		<description>Hey everyone look who always has to have the last words when considering chuck.Its Alex.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey everyone look who always has to have the last words when considering chuck.Its Alex.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76203</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76203</guid>
		<description>Nick you and the rest of the Chuck fans can continue to spin the scapegoat Leno argument all you like but the truth is that Leno is an excuse and over looks the very simple fact that Chuck is in trouble because of its poor performance. As I asked previously if Chuck had spent this season scoring low 3&#039;s instead of low 2&#039;s would it now be facing the axe? The answer to that question is no because Leno or no Leno, NBC would find a way to make Chuck work next year with those numbers. Chuck is facing the axe because its numbers aren&#039;t good enough for NBC to be compelled to make it work next year and you can sit around blaming Leno all you want the fact is Chuck&#039;s poor performance has put it in this situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick you and the rest of the Chuck fans can continue to spin the scapegoat Leno argument all you like but the truth is that Leno is an excuse and over looks the very simple fact that Chuck is in trouble because of its poor performance. As I asked previously if Chuck had spent this season scoring low 3&#8242;s instead of low 2&#8242;s would it now be facing the axe? The answer to that question is no because Leno or no Leno, NBC would find a way to make Chuck work next year with those numbers. Chuck is facing the axe because its numbers aren&#8217;t good enough for NBC to be compelled to make it work next year and you can sit around blaming Leno all you want the fact is Chuck&#8217;s poor performance has put it in this situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Korn</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76193</link>
		<dc:creator>Korn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76193</guid>
		<description>I think the thing thats ruining Chuck&#039;s rating would actually be because of how many people download chuck via Torrents, just check out the number of seeders! I love the show too much to betray it by downloading it off the internet though, watch it on axn every week</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the thing thats ruining Chuck&#8217;s rating would actually be because of how many people download chuck via Torrents, just check out the number of seeders! I love the show too much to betray it by downloading it off the internet though, watch it on axn every week</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: esrever</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76145</link>
		<dc:creator>esrever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76145</guid>
		<description>Julia said:
&quot;Bruce, the whole Chuck/Sarah relationship turned me off. Having them together makes me want to watch it even less.&quot;

So you don&#039;t like the &quot;will-they-or-won’t-they&quot; but you would like them being together even less? So what would you like to have happen? Chuck/Sarah saying they like each other but nothing could ever happen between them and then it never being mentioned again? That would be kind of ridiculous. You seem very hard to please.

Julia said:
&quot;Richard, Sarah is the problem for me. The whole relationship was just far too cliche and completely predictable.&quot;

That&#039;s a pretty ridiculous reason since most of the relationships on tv are very cliche and predictable. If that is the case I&#039;d be very surprised if you watched even a few tv shows.

Julia said:
&quot;Richard, I stopped watching because the show became too much about will-they-or-won’t-they between Chuck and Sarah.&quot; 

You do realize that one of the top rules of television is that lead characters can never get together and stay together for long because that isn&#039;t what most people want to see. If they are together every week 
and are all lovey dovey it would be very boring.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julia said:<br />
&#8220;Bruce, the whole Chuck/Sarah relationship turned me off. Having them together makes me want to watch it even less.&#8221;</p>
<p>So you don&#8217;t like the &#8220;will-they-or-won’t-they&#8221; but you would like them being together even less? So what would you like to have happen? Chuck/Sarah saying they like each other but nothing could ever happen between them and then it never being mentioned again? That would be kind of ridiculous. You seem very hard to please.</p>
<p>Julia said:<br />
&#8220;Richard, Sarah is the problem for me. The whole relationship was just far too cliche and completely predictable.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a pretty ridiculous reason since most of the relationships on tv are very cliche and predictable. If that is the case I&#8217;d be very surprised if you watched even a few tv shows.</p>
<p>Julia said:<br />
&#8220;Richard, I stopped watching because the show became too much about will-they-or-won’t-they between Chuck and Sarah.&#8221; </p>
<p>You do realize that one of the top rules of television is that lead characters can never get together and stay together for long because that isn&#8217;t what most people want to see. If they are together every week<br />
and are all lovey dovey it would be very boring.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: porkchops</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76111</link>
		<dc:creator>porkchops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76111</guid>
		<description>Alex,

Although I agree with some of your arguments regarding Chuck&#039;s numbers, you&#039;re really sounding like a broken record. We get it! Chuck&#039;s numbers are sub-par and maybe even bad. 

It seems like your on a mission to invalidate any positive spin on Chuck&#039;s numbers. None of the Chuck fans will listen to you. They heard you the first time and they heard you the hundreds of time after that. Seriously, when someone says something remotely positive about Chuck&#039;s ratings, you&#039;re there to squash it. Just stop peeing on their parade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex,</p>
<p>Although I agree with some of your arguments regarding Chuck&#8217;s numbers, you&#8217;re really sounding like a broken record. We get it! Chuck&#8217;s numbers are sub-par and maybe even bad. </p>
<p>It seems like your on a mission to invalidate any positive spin on Chuck&#8217;s numbers. None of the Chuck fans will listen to you. They heard you the first time and they heard you the hundreds of time after that. Seriously, when someone says something remotely positive about Chuck&#8217;s ratings, you&#8217;re there to squash it. Just stop peeing on their parade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul 80</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76096</link>
		<dc:creator>paul 80</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76096</guid>
		<description>Nick C. says

 They said I was full of it too and wanted to call the production offices.       HUH.I don&#039;t remember that answer as being one of your 4 options. Besides CHUCKS productions offices have been closed since March 24. Maybe you could call Josh at home he really is a very approachable guy.
 Nick, I really get the feeling that your a well education guy, probable went to film school and everything .
 Someday if you stay focused you will get out of that PA loop your stuck in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick C. says</p>
<p> They said I was full of it too and wanted to call the production offices.       HUH.I don&#8217;t remember that answer as being one of your 4 options. Besides CHUCKS productions offices have been closed since March 24. Maybe you could call Josh at home he really is a very approachable guy.<br />
 Nick, I really get the feeling that your a well education guy, probable went to film school and everything .<br />
 Someday if you stay focused you will get out of that PA loop your stuck in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76091</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76091</guid>
		<description>paul 80, sorry but I&#039;m not going to call someone and ask them that question.  I could ask many people who would know the answer to that question.  The problem is why ask that question?  What does it have to do with me and my relationships with them?  We talk the future of shows around this time because it&#039;s their jobs.

You know when I said DIRTY SEXY MONEY was over and it was a matter of time before it was official (As in producers told) one of their janitors or PAs or something got on here and bet me $10,000.  I still haven&#039;t been paid (and neither has Robert).  They said I was full of it too and wanted me to call the production offices.

I&#039;m pretty sure Josh will learn this week what is happening and won&#039;t have to wait until Monday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>paul 80, sorry but I&#8217;m not going to call someone and ask them that question.  I could ask many people who would know the answer to that question.  The problem is why ask that question?  What does it have to do with me and my relationships with them?  We talk the future of shows around this time because it&#8217;s their jobs.</p>
<p>You know when I said DIRTY SEXY MONEY was over and it was a matter of time before it was official (As in producers told) one of their janitors or PAs or something got on here and bet me $10,000.  I still haven&#8217;t been paid (and neither has Robert).  They said I was full of it too and wanted me to call the production offices.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m pretty sure Josh will learn this week what is happening and won&#8217;t have to wait until Monday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul 80</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76086</link>
		<dc:creator>paul 80</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76086</guid>
		<description>Question for Nick C.
 
 In CHUCKS 2nd season that concludes next Monday, it was common knowledge that it had a 22 episode pick up. But in factor NBC never signed the licensing agreement for the back 9 for many months after filming started.
 Why not call your source up and proved us with the correct answer? I will help you out by giving 4 answer to choose from.
 A. July
 B. August
 C. September
 D. October

One other comment, I would like to help you out with. If CHUCK is canceled, Josh Schwartz will know on April 27 9:05 Pm Pacific Standard Time and anybody that works for the company will know Tuesday morning April 28, not on May 5th</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Question for Nick C.</p>
<p> In CHUCKS 2nd season that concludes next Monday, it was common knowledge that it had a 22 episode pick up. But in factor NBC never signed the licensing agreement for the back 9 for many months after filming started.<br />
 Why not call your source up and proved us with the correct answer? I will help you out by giving 4 answer to choose from.<br />
 A. July<br />
 B. August<br />
 C. September<br />
 D. October</p>
<p>One other comment, I would like to help you out with. If CHUCK is canceled, Josh Schwartz will know on April 27 9:05 Pm Pacific Standard Time and anybody that works for the company will know Tuesday morning April 28, not on May 5th</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-76082</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:50:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-76082</guid>
		<description>Alex, they take exception because you dislike the show and twist reality to fit your view of the show.  Sorry, but that&#039;s the facts.  You answered my question and showed you&#039;re blind.  I don&#039;t see how a show that is doing slightly better than the network average is &quot;bad.&quot;  CHUCK doesn&#039;t have bad numbers for NBC.  If it was a FOX or CBS show it would be canned.  For NBC, CW, or even ABC the numbers would be good enough for renewal.  I&#039;m pretty sure the .92 on the index on this site is likely to drop to .89.  In that case CHUCK&#039;s numbers are good enough for every network but FOX (and right now it&#039;s good enough for FOX, except the numbers are only going to get better for FOX until it likely passes CBS)and CBS.

On the whole NBC is doing bad.  It has an average of 2.3 in 18-49 demo per show on the network.  CHUCK pulling a 2.4 is better.  See how easy that is?

I&#039;m pretty sure NBC changed their tune for leverage to get a lower price from Warner for CHUCK.  There are too many reasons CHUCK should be renewed for them to really be considering canceling it.  I may have been told 90/10 but I&#039;m personally thinking it&#039;s 50/50 with Warner having the ability to bring it back in their hands.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, they take exception because you dislike the show and twist reality to fit your view of the show.  Sorry, but that&#8217;s the facts.  You answered my question and showed you&#8217;re blind.  I don&#8217;t see how a show that is doing slightly better than the network average is &#8220;bad.&#8221;  CHUCK doesn&#8217;t have bad numbers for NBC.  If it was a FOX or CBS show it would be canned.  For NBC, CW, or even ABC the numbers would be good enough for renewal.  I&#8217;m pretty sure the .92 on the index on this site is likely to drop to .89.  In that case CHUCK&#8217;s numbers are good enough for every network but FOX (and right now it&#8217;s good enough for FOX, except the numbers are only going to get better for FOX until it likely passes CBS)and CBS.</p>
<p>On the whole NBC is doing bad.  It has an average of 2.3 in 18-49 demo per show on the network.  CHUCK pulling a 2.4 is better.  See how easy that is?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m pretty sure NBC changed their tune for leverage to get a lower price from Warner for CHUCK.  There are too many reasons CHUCK should be renewed for them to really be considering canceling it.  I may have been told 90/10 but I&#8217;m personally thinking it&#8217;s 50/50 with Warner having the ability to bring it back in their hands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-75858</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:38:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75858</guid>
		<description>Travis I don’t wonder even a little bit why certain people (read Chuck fans) take exception to some of the things I’ve posted. 

If you want to take someone pointing out Chuck’s bad numbers as some kind of personal insult or attack then go for it and if you want to take someone believing NBC would cancel Chuck because of said numbers as another personal insult or attack then more power to you. It makes no sense to me but whatever makes you happy.

But make no mistake about it your taking offence to my view on Chuck&#039;s numbers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Travis I don’t wonder even a little bit why certain people (read Chuck fans) take exception to some of the things I’ve posted. </p>
<p>If you want to take someone pointing out Chuck’s bad numbers as some kind of personal insult or attack then go for it and if you want to take someone believing NBC would cancel Chuck because of said numbers as another personal insult or attack then more power to you. It makes no sense to me but whatever makes you happy.</p>
<p>But make no mistake about it your taking offence to my view on Chuck&#8217;s numbers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: travis</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-75837</link>
		<dc:creator>travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75837</guid>
		<description>Alex you wonder why some of us go after you its some of your comments toward some shows.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex you wonder why some of us go after you its some of your comments toward some shows.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melissa0914</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-75821</link>
		<dc:creator>Melissa0914</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75821</guid>
		<description>Darn it.  I was hoping for epic ratings for Chuck... I am so hopeful for a 3rd season... why not try changing the NIGHT Chuck is on??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Darn it.  I was hoping for epic ratings for Chuck&#8230; I am so hopeful for a 3rd season&#8230; why not try changing the NIGHT Chuck is on??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-75786</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75786</guid>
		<description>&quot;Are they canceling CHUCK because it does bad, or because they have fewer time slots now?&quot;

They’re cancelling it because it does badly anything else is just an excuse. 

I’ll kick back in with my seemingly constant loop on this - if NBC wants Chuck back next year they’ll find a way to make it work regardless of five hours of Leno but Chuck fans don’t like to accept that possibility because it means you can&#039;t make Jay Leno the scapegoat for your favourite shows failings and like it or not pulling a mid 2 at best is a failing. And that mid 2 at best is the real reason Chuck’s facing the axe, if its ratings weren’t in the toilet then it would be back for a third season.

Like I’ve said before Leno wasn’t moved to 10 so NBC could cancel poor performers but now he’s there they’re going to use him to do it. He’s their magic deflector shield when it comes to the subject of why Chuck or anything else that was on the bubble was cancelled. If over the next couple of months we don’t here some kind of ‘we/they wanted to bring [insert show here] back but Leno made it impossible’ explanation for NBC bubble shows being cancelled I will be absolutely astonished. And regardless of whether anyone officially says it that’s exactly what is going to be reported because that’s what is already being reported. 

But lets continue to over look the fact that Chuck’s poor performances got it cancelled and just pass the buck to Jay ‘scapegoat’ Leno because hey if Chuck were pulling 3.2&#039;s instead of 2.2&#039;s I&#039;m sure NBC would axe it anyway, I mean they&#039;re doing it because there&#039;s no space on the schedule not because of its poor performance.

Leno is the perfect excuse for NBC, Chuck fans and the Chuck production team for dropping the axe because lets face it, it looks better for NBC to be able to say - no that wasn’t cancelled because of its ratings we were actually quite happy with those, it was cancelled because with Leno moving to 10 we simply couldn’t fit it on the schedule.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Are they canceling CHUCK because it does bad, or because they have fewer time slots now?&#8221;</p>
<p>They’re cancelling it because it does badly anything else is just an excuse. </p>
<p>I’ll kick back in with my seemingly constant loop on this &#8211; if NBC wants Chuck back next year they’ll find a way to make it work regardless of five hours of Leno but Chuck fans don’t like to accept that possibility because it means you can&#8217;t make Jay Leno the scapegoat for your favourite shows failings and like it or not pulling a mid 2 at best is a failing. And that mid 2 at best is the real reason Chuck’s facing the axe, if its ratings weren’t in the toilet then it would be back for a third season.</p>
<p>Like I’ve said before Leno wasn’t moved to 10 so NBC could cancel poor performers but now he’s there they’re going to use him to do it. He’s their magic deflector shield when it comes to the subject of why Chuck or anything else that was on the bubble was cancelled. If over the next couple of months we don’t here some kind of ‘we/they wanted to bring [insert show here] back but Leno made it impossible’ explanation for NBC bubble shows being cancelled I will be absolutely astonished. And regardless of whether anyone officially says it that’s exactly what is going to be reported because that’s what is already being reported. </p>
<p>But lets continue to over look the fact that Chuck’s poor performances got it cancelled and just pass the buck to Jay ‘scapegoat’ Leno because hey if Chuck were pulling 3.2&#8242;s instead of 2.2&#8242;s I&#8217;m sure NBC would axe it anyway, I mean they&#8217;re doing it because there&#8217;s no space on the schedule not because of its poor performance.</p>
<p>Leno is the perfect excuse for NBC, Chuck fans and the Chuck production team for dropping the axe because lets face it, it looks better for NBC to be able to say &#8211; no that wasn’t cancelled because of its ratings we were actually quite happy with those, it was cancelled because with Leno moving to 10 we simply couldn’t fit it on the schedule.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katherine</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-17/#comment-75784</link>
		<dc:creator>Katherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:50:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75784</guid>
		<description>Nick said: It’s a numbers game. I was specifically told they just can’t seem to find the room for it. This makes sense. You have PARENTHOOD, LEGALLY MAD, and TRAUMA all new shows they plan on picking up for the Fall, plus DAY ONE which is supposed to air just during the Fall. Sundays are taken up by the NFL. Thursday Night isn’t an option. Half of Friday is already done. So that just leaves you with 7 hours to program. CHUCK just doesn’t fit.

Start trying to make it fit yourself, and you’ll understand. They all seem to love the show, so I’m sure that is where the 10% is coming from. They just don’t have the room.


Nick,
I don&#039;t agree with your reasoning.  While Chuck may have gone from leaning toward renewal to leaning towards cancellation, I imagine it has to do with WB and NBC not being able to work out a deal and not because they can&#039;t find room for it.

I don&#039;t know where you heard about what they are planning to pick up but from what I understand only three pilots have officially been given the green light, Day One and Legally Mad and the new Debra Messing show.  Now I am not saying that you are wrong, but there hasn&#039;t been official word that they are going to pick the other two up.  Also, while yes you are correct that from the looks of things Chuck is a hard fit just about anywhere at first glance, but I think that you are maybe making assumptions here.  First, you are assuming that Leno as well as the four pilots you listed are going to succeed and be given full season pick-ups.  Lets assume that at least one of these shows fails (I am not saying that I hope it fails or want it to fail, but realistically speaking at least one of these is not going make it).  The logical conclusion is to replace it with L&amp;O.  But what do you replace it with if more than one fails?  What happens if Leno isn&#039;t successful? What do you put on after Football?  I mean NBC&#039;s logic used to be that they would show reruns of the L&amp;O franchise, but if NBC ever wants to succeed they can&#039;t keep doing that.  I would hate to see Chuck go but like I said if it is leaning towards cancellation, it likely more has to do with money than with not fitting.  NBC would be absolutely stupid to put all their eggs in one basket and assume that all the shows are going to succeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick said: It’s a numbers game. I was specifically told they just can’t seem to find the room for it. This makes sense. You have PARENTHOOD, LEGALLY MAD, and TRAUMA all new shows they plan on picking up for the Fall, plus DAY ONE which is supposed to air just during the Fall. Sundays are taken up by the NFL. Thursday Night isn’t an option. Half of Friday is already done. So that just leaves you with 7 hours to program. CHUCK just doesn’t fit.</p>
<p>Start trying to make it fit yourself, and you’ll understand. They all seem to love the show, so I’m sure that is where the 10% is coming from. They just don’t have the room.</p>
<p>Nick,<br />
I don&#8217;t agree with your reasoning.  While Chuck may have gone from leaning toward renewal to leaning towards cancellation, I imagine it has to do with WB and NBC not being able to work out a deal and not because they can&#8217;t find room for it.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know where you heard about what they are planning to pick up but from what I understand only three pilots have officially been given the green light, Day One and Legally Mad and the new Debra Messing show.  Now I am not saying that you are wrong, but there hasn&#8217;t been official word that they are going to pick the other two up.  Also, while yes you are correct that from the looks of things Chuck is a hard fit just about anywhere at first glance, but I think that you are maybe making assumptions here.  First, you are assuming that Leno as well as the four pilots you listed are going to succeed and be given full season pick-ups.  Lets assume that at least one of these shows fails (I am not saying that I hope it fails or want it to fail, but realistically speaking at least one of these is not going make it).  The logical conclusion is to replace it with L&amp;O.  But what do you replace it with if more than one fails?  What happens if Leno isn&#8217;t successful? What do you put on after Football?  I mean NBC&#8217;s logic used to be that they would show reruns of the L&amp;O franchise, but if NBC ever wants to succeed they can&#8217;t keep doing that.  I would hate to see Chuck go but like I said if it is leaning towards cancellation, it likely more has to do with money than with not fitting.  NBC would be absolutely stupid to put all their eggs in one basket and assume that all the shows are going to succeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S.</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-16/#comment-75720</link>
		<dc:creator>S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75720</guid>
		<description>If you people had been around reading this site since at least November, you would have the chance to see Nick C face the nutty fringe of the Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money fans do exactly what you Chuck fans are doing now. He was right them, and he probably is right now. 90% right, that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you people had been around reading this site since at least November, you would have the chance to see Nick C face the nutty fringe of the Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money fans do exactly what you Chuck fans are doing now. He was right them, and he probably is right now. 90% right, that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce W.</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-16/#comment-75703</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75703</guid>
		<description>Julia says:  “Sarah is the problem for me. The whole relationship was just far too cliché and completely predictable. I found it boring. I think the last episode I watched was when Sarah took truth serum and told Chuck that they would never have a relationship and later admitted to Casey that she was immune to truth serum otherwise the whole thing would’ve blown up in their faces. I rolled my eyes and deleted the show from my season pass.” This episode (Chuck vs. The Truth) was my favorite of season one. It got me hooked onto the show. Usually, people roll their eyes when I explain to them about Chuck having an Intersect in his head. For you it was the truth serum. The majority of TV relationships are cliché and predictable. At least you gave the show a try.

Richard Steven Hack says:” Talk about incredibly, nauseatingly bad writing! It was nothing less than a deliberate insult to all the fans who were big on John and Cameron getting together before the show ended.”  I stopped watching TSCC at the beginning of this season (last episode I saw was Cameron’s origin).  John Conner “hooks up” with Cameron the terminator? Talk about a jump the shark moment. When TSCC came out, I thought it could probably last for two seasons and it did. John Conner can only do so much running before it gets boring. At least with the new movie coming out, you finally get to see John Conner being the great leader the movies and show have talked about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Julia says:  “Sarah is the problem for me. The whole relationship was just far too cliché and completely predictable. I found it boring. I think the last episode I watched was when Sarah took truth serum and told Chuck that they would never have a relationship and later admitted to Casey that she was immune to truth serum otherwise the whole thing would’ve blown up in their faces. I rolled my eyes and deleted the show from my season pass.” This episode (Chuck vs. The Truth) was my favorite of season one. It got me hooked onto the show. Usually, people roll their eyes when I explain to them about Chuck having an Intersect in his head. For you it was the truth serum. The majority of TV relationships are cliché and predictable. At least you gave the show a try.</p>
<p>Richard Steven Hack says:” Talk about incredibly, nauseatingly bad writing! It was nothing less than a deliberate insult to all the fans who were big on John and Cameron getting together before the show ended.”  I stopped watching TSCC at the beginning of this season (last episode I saw was Cameron’s origin).  John Conner “hooks up” with Cameron the terminator? Talk about a jump the shark moment. When TSCC came out, I thought it could probably last for two seasons and it did. John Conner can only do so much running before it gets boring. At least with the new movie coming out, you finally get to see John Conner being the great leader the movies and show have talked about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pad</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-16/#comment-75701</link>
		<dc:creator>Pad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75701</guid>
		<description>Children please!!............just use the word scapegoat. ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Children please!!&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;just use the word scapegoat. <img src='http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick C</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-16/#comment-75695</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75695</guid>
		<description>Alex, I did.  Perhaps you need some English lessons?  You contradict yourself with:

&quot;I’m not saying they put Leno at 10 so they could cancel Chuck or anything else, I’m saying that now he’s there they’ve got all the cover they need to cancel Chuck,&quot;

First your use of &quot;or anything else,&quot; means you aren&#039;t saying anything at all (if you had said it like this, you&#039;d mean or any other shows).  That is contradiction number 1.  The second is &quot;they&#039;ve got all the cover they need,&quot; and the question is why do they need cover?  You just said you&#039;re not implying they moved Leno to 10 so they could cancel their average shows.  Why would they hide behind something?    

So answer straight up:

Are they canceling CHUCK because it does bad, or because they have fewer time slots now?

It&#039;s because of less time slots.  That is a reason and not an excuse.  If they mention they didn&#039;t have the slot for CHUCK because of LENO then they&#039;re just admitting the truth and not coming up with an excuse for why they didn&#039;t renew CHUCK.  They&#039;re stating the reason.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, I did.  Perhaps you need some English lessons?  You contradict yourself with:</p>
<p>&#8220;I’m not saying they put Leno at 10 so they could cancel Chuck or anything else, I’m saying that now he’s there they’ve got all the cover they need to cancel Chuck,&#8221;</p>
<p>First your use of &#8220;or anything else,&#8221; means you aren&#8217;t saying anything at all (if you had said it like this, you&#8217;d mean or any other shows).  That is contradiction number 1.  The second is &#8220;they&#8217;ve got all the cover they need,&#8221; and the question is why do they need cover?  You just said you&#8217;re not implying they moved Leno to 10 so they could cancel their average shows.  Why would they hide behind something?    </p>
<p>So answer straight up:</p>
<p>Are they canceling CHUCK because it does bad, or because they have fewer time slots now?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s because of less time slots.  That is a reason and not an excuse.  If they mention they didn&#8217;t have the slot for CHUCK because of LENO then they&#8217;re just admitting the truth and not coming up with an excuse for why they didn&#8217;t renew CHUCK.  They&#8217;re stating the reason.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085/comment-page-16/#comment-75637</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/21/monday-ratings-chuck-idles-icastle-inches-up-vs-rerun/17085#comment-75637</guid>
		<description>Yes Nick that&#039;s exactly what I said if you skip over where I clearly say &#039;I’m not saying they put Leno at 10 so they could cancel Chuck or anything else&#039;

Perhaps you should take the advice you gave Julia and actually read the posts?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Nick that&#8217;s exactly what I said if you skip over where I clearly say &#8216;I’m not saying they put Leno at 10 so they could cancel Chuck or anything else&#8217;</p>
<p>Perhaps you should take the advice you gave Julia and actually read the posts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

