“…name specific instances where you see bad writing and bad effects and how you would do them better. Also, who would you try to get to play Olivia and Peter? I’d like to know! Seriously! …”

Ok, let me just go back through the season on my DVR and check…..Ummmm…..NO, I’m not going to do that, sorry.

http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/05/07/is-fringe-about-to-give-lost-a-run-for-its-money/
In the article, “Is Fringe about to give Lost a run for its money?” Hughes wrote, “Fringe is one of the best hours on television right now, and it could well be poised to

No longer pretending to like Fringe, name specific instances where you see bad writing and bad effects and how you would do them better. Also, who would you try to get to play Olivia and Peter? I’d like to know! Seriously! Joshua Jackson reminds me of William Shatner a little bit. Just a little.

“Gee, that looked totally fake”…

“Must be reading from the phone book just there, or maybe a cue card”…

“My god, she only has one expression…and it’s the one we saw in the promo”…

You’re right that about 9 million others who don’t agree. But there about 12-14 million though who do as shown by them turning off the TV after Idol.

“You people! FRINGE WAS FRIGGIN RENEWED!! Why are we arguing about it?!?”

No one is, we all know it’s been picked up. We just want to talk about the ratings and numbers. Is that ok?

Tom says:
May 8th, 2009 at 7:59 am

“Fringe is the number one show of the year (in 18-49)”

No one is saying it is not. I don’t know why Fringe people have to say that every two minutes. It will not change anything. “Renewed”, “demo hit”…Should we stop talking about everything because of those 2 points? They don’t make the show any more of less in any regard.

Richard Steven Hack says:
May 8th, 2009 at 5:57 am

“We’re arguing because a bunch of Fringe haters want the show to fail and won’t be happy until it does. They disguise themselves as “liking” the show, but their attitude is quite clearly the opposite”

I’ll not pretend to be a fan any longer. Here are my true thoughts. Worst show on TV. Copy of other shows and characters – In my opinion. Bad acting & bad actors (aside from John Nobel), bad scripts and bad effects.

Fringe is the number one show of the year (in 18-49), and only ~9 scripted mega-hits top its ratings.

This isn’t 2000, or even 2005 – saying something is a failure because it doesn’t get 5.0+ is preposterous. There’s exactly ONE scripted show that gets a 5.0+ this year (DH) – are you really claiming that all of network TV is a failure because it doesn’t hit the ratings of yesteryear?

Now, you can argue that Fringe’s ratings do not warrant its price tag, or warrant its timeslot, but to say that A) they are a failure in themselves is preposterous, and B)some other scripted show (aside from House) would do better in the slot, depends more on if _any_ new show will ever hit those lofty heights. Are 2009′s ratings the results of a strike-afflicted pilot season, or are they the new reality of broadcast television? We will see in four to five months, but that even The Mentalist can’t get there suggests that 4.0 (or less) hits is the new reality.

Eastbound and Down- Best comedy on TV IMHO

Again, nobody cares how Fringe compares to every other show on TV, which is what you’re comparing it to. Why not compare it to Idol itself if you’re going to do that? What matters is Fringe is doing well against the competition it has.

11 million is low coming off of 20 million? And Idol is low, too. as Alex pointed out. Very few shows sustain 20 million viewers these days. Get serious. 9-11 million are numbers a hell of a lot of shows would kill to be pulling. Just because the show isn’t pulling Idol numbers, you complain. That’s simply stupid.

“Fail the audience of AI”? WTF? Do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounds? Fringe is paired with AI for a lead-in! It’s not expected to keep ALL THE AI VIEWERS! It’s insane to even consider that. Which is why comparing the show to anything else a year ago is even more ridiculous. Again, if you want to complain about when and with whom the show is aired, go to Fox and apply for the job. Otherwise Fox has done what it considers its best pairing – and the result is a renewal. Which means they’re obviously smarter than you.

Many shows axed based on the retention? Right, tell me another. They get axed because their demo numbers are low, not because they didn’t retain some viewers from some lead-in show. Nobody puts a show on the air simply to retain viewers from some other show. That may contribute to WHERE the show is placed, but that’s not the reason the show is bought and it’s not the reason the show is canceled.

You’re just arguing to be arguing at this point. Don’t waste my time.

S: I see absolutely no difference between Fringe’s earlier episodes and the current ones except a slight increase in the mythology vs the procedural aspects, especially in the last few episodes. Hasn’t been dumbed down at all as far as I can see.

Sushiroll: We’re arguing because a bunch of Fringe haters want the show to fail and won’t be happy until it does. They disguise themselves as “liking” the show, but their attitude is quite clearly the opposite. I’ve been accused of that myself (wrongly) with TSCC, so I know the concept. If the show doesn’t pull AI numbers and beats Monday Night Football, they’re ready to write it off as a failure. It’s just BS from people full of themselves.

“It’s not surprising to me that Fringe has lost some viewers along the way. It’s a hard show to both understand and like in the same way some sitcom might be.”

Once again, a year ago, Hell’s Kitchen was doing better. Bones does better too. And House? It would nail Mentalist in the overall viewership too.

“Your notion that “overall viewership is low” is pure bullshit. Fringe is doing 9-11 million viewers (including the last half hour), and barely shedding a couple million after the AI people leave in the second half hour.”

It is low coming off 22-23 million. It’s less than 50%. Once again, other shows are much better at keeping the audience after AI.

“Your notion that “overall viewership is low” is pure bullshit. Fringe is doing 9-11 million viewers (including the last half hour), and barely shedding a couple million after the AI people leave in the second half hour.”

erm, okay.Now you are just trying too hard. I did say it gets decent numbers, especially paired with House. But with AI, not really. Had FOX started Fringe alongside with AI, I’m sure renewing would’ve been a little more… complicated, because based on it’s current performance, it’s anyone’s bet what it could do on it’s own, or with a smaller lead in.

Once again: it delivered literally the same numbers when it was paired with House, which is decent. But it seems to completetly fail the audience of AI, therefore, it’s not a good pairing for it, like it or not.

“BS about retention and other irrelevant matters.”

you call retention BS? Lol, ok. That’s the final nail in the coffin, seriously. MANY, many shows have been axed based on just the retention.

Fox is only “wasting the time slot” if they had something better to put there. Since they haven’t, obviously they don’t. If you’d like a job scheduling Fox programs, I’m sure they have application forms on the Web site.

My point about Fringe being hard to understand is that it’s not a sitcom. I didn’t say it was impossible to understand. I said compared to a sitcom it’s hard. It’s a SERIAL, not a procedural, although JJ does an excellent job of combining those elements so that the serial nature does not overshadow the procedural. My point stands – it’s still harder to get into than a full procedural or a sitcom.

Dropping half a point after a hiatus doesn’t surprise me, although it came back from the hiatus at approximately the same level as before it. It may have lost some viewers but it’s not clear to me either that there is a specific reason, or that it can be considered “bleeding” in the same sense as, for example, TSCC or Dollhouse.

Your notion that “overall viewership is low” is pure bullshit. Fringe is doing 9-11 million viewers (including the last half hour), and barely shedding a couple million after the AI people leave in the second half hour. That’s not “low” these days, especially compared to a lot of other shows on Fox and other networks that are lucky to be getting five million. Just because it doesn’t do AI numbers doesn’t mean the numbers are “low”. THAT’s absurd.

Fringe is getting good enough numbers to be renewed, despite your “bleeding” idea.

And again, a solid performer is the new “hit”. So Fringe qualifies for the term as well as anything else Fox has that was a new show this season. It’s mere semantics to be bitching about whether it’s a “hit” when it’s a new show in its first season and has been renewed with good numbers.

If you just don’t like the show, say so, but don’t fudge around trying to come up with reasons why the show isn’t working when it obviously is working fine enough to be renewed. It’s clear to me from your attitude that you simply dislike the show, like most of the Fringe haters here who BS about retention and other irrelevant matters.

Was Idol itself not pulling bigger numbers back then though?

@Richard Steven Hack

ever since Fringe returned in april 7, it’s been getting ratings in the range of 3.7 and 4.1. The average of this run is around 3.9.
“Nobody cares what some other show did last year in the same time slot even if it aired after the same lead-in.”

Erm, fox does. They are wasting the post ai timeslot with Fringe. It’s only barely edging out Mentalist/Biggest Loser, in fact, int he 2nd half hour, BL often beats Fringe. And the overall viewership is low.

“It’s not surprising to me that Fringe has lost some viewers along the way. It’s a hard show to both understand and like in the same way some sitcom might be.”

Oh please, dont be absurd. Fringe is fairly easily to follow. Even the most serialized episodes have episodic elements. Fringe is far from a true high concept show like Lost, Prison Break or even 24.

The show is definitely bleeding viewers. Before the hiatus, it averaged around 4.5 with AI..

it’s now getting almost the same numbers it got when it was paired with House.

I am not really worried for Fringe, because even on it’s own, I think it’s able to get upper 2′s in the demo(2.8-3.0) which should be more than enough for FOX with some budget cuts, plus its a watercooler show, however, saying it’s getting good ratings IS absurd. It’s decent, but nowhere near a hit, or anything like that.

And 3.8 is one week’s demo number – not the series average. People jumping on one week’s number are people trying to denigrate the show regardless of facts.

It’s not surprising to me that Fringe has lost some viewers along the way. It’s a hard show to both understand and like in the same way some sitcom might be. It’s a complicated show both in individual episodes and in its overall story arc. So I’d expect some bleeding of viewers from its debut. The question will be: as the story arc gets more complicated, will the bleeding continue?

We won’t really know that until season two. Which is why I worry about how JJ will present the continued development of the mythology of the show next season. It’s going to be hard to tell a compelling story about an inter-dimensional war that is easy for the wider audience to understand.

I could see the show possibly bleeding viewers next season and ending up as a two-season show, regardless of how well it’s done, just because of the subject matter.

But by the same token, if it’s done well enough to counter that problem, it could do an X-Files and run five seasons.

It’s way too early to be declaring Fringe a loser.

Fringe is not doing well after AI. It’s now getting the same numbers it got when it was paired with House.

I’m not saying the writers shouldn’t have done what they felt was best for the show, but making those kind of choices can cost viewers.

As for me, I did watch the show trhough, even when J.D. was mean. I actually didn’t really care for Season 7′s wacky hijinks, so I was pleasantly surprised by how good Season 8 was. The finale was almost perfect…I loved the probably-happy but bittersweet ending. I’m a bit surprised and sorry that its prominence in syndication didn’t translate to higher ratings this season, but my co-worker who says she really likes Scrubs didn’t even know that it was on in prime time..

As for Better Off Ted, I know that it was a longshot regardless, but if the ratings were flat or even went up a tick for the finale, I reckon ABC would have given it a second look. I thought it had more laugh-out-loud funny moments than anything else this season (with the possible exception of 30 Rock)…but if I hadn’t been randomly Googling Better Off Ted ratings I never would have known that the finale was Tuesday (and I also would’ve missed that Tuesday episode of Scrubs). I think viewers are smart enough to follow shows when they make a permanent timeslot shift, but I only watch Scrubs and BOT on ABC, so even if ABC had aired advertisements about the timeslot shift, I wouldn’t have seen them.

Yeah, Garrett was pretty good. I never really found him that engaging, but he wasn’t bad. I kinda liked Owain Yoeman in the original Cromartie role. He looked more sinister, although not quite as creepy as Garrett could be with his weird half smile. To make a simile, Owain was more Arnold, while Garret was more Robert Patrick.

I think Eliza could carry a series – just not this one.

But to compare to her, Summer Glau could carry a series with one hand. If they want a Terminator show to work, just make her the central character, give her a couple other actors to play the humans needed to make audience connections, let the show be like “The Hulk” or “The Fugitive” – and it would go five seasons if the writers and directors were competent. “Highlander” surprised everybody by doing just that AND spinning off two movies and another series.

Hack, oh you’re amazing to watch. Seeing you go off on a tangent and rant is just priceless. Dollhouse wasn’t necessarily bad, I just feel Dushku cannot carry a series.

As for TSCC, the most under appreciated was Dillahunt.

I’ve rarely seen anything I consider “bad acting” on Fringe – and although I’ve seen some on Dollhouse, it’s been relatively rare. Even Eliza is believable most of the time – as long as she isn’t playing the Doll role, which by definition isn’t “believable” because there’s no personality there to portray. That’s one of the problems with the show.

Some people dislike the guy who plays FBI agent Ballard on Dollhouse. I find him believable, if not particularly interesting or engaging either as an actor or as the character. I like Harry Lennix better.

I cut actors some slack. I’ve seen some truly bad acting in my day – notable from Racquel Welch who never once delivered a line I thought was believable in her entire career (not that anybody cared!). And there have been some really bad times in Chuck Norris’s early career that made Arnold Schwarzenegger look good.

But most actors are at least adequate. They wouldn’t get hired otherwise. They do have to audition and show some experience to get the roles they get.

Most of the time what people call “bad acting” is actually “bad dialog” – and that’s the writers fault, not the actors. I’ve seen some of that on Fringe and many other shows. Also, bad directing can result in what appears to be bad acting.

Another example is all the people who couldn’t understand Summer Glau as Cameron. She’s playing a ROBOT for Christ’s sakes! Summer explained over and over in her interviews that you can’t play a robot like a normal actress and Carson Daly got it when he said to play this role you almost have to be a bad actress. But a lot of people still babbled about “bad acting”, even after “Allison From Palmdale” which should have gotten Summer an Emmy nomination by playing three different roles in the same show. Even Shirley Manson was entirely believable in her role on TSCC, despite never having acted before she was cast. And that was because she was playing a robot and never had to extend herself – that and the fact that as a rock star she IS a performer.

Not every acting performance has to be Oscar or Emmy quality to be “good”. It just has to not distract you from the show excessively.

Another thing with Fringe, the opening scenes are almost too cheesy. This past Tuesday the acting was painfully funny to watch, almost as bad as an entire episode of Dollhouse.

Fringe does “wow” me to an extent, but it generally takes a while each episode.

It’s definitely not crappy. And I don’t think it’s too complicated – yet. We’ll have to see what happens in the finale.

And again, I just hope JJ doesn’t blow it next season by doing some weird complicated “Lost” thing. I mean, an inter-dimensional war is going to be hard to put across sensibly. As long as it remains rooted in the real world like the show has been so far, it will be OK. If it starts going “Doctor Who”, it will jump the shark fast.

And God forbid they bring in time travel!

Good.

I don’t know who really thought that CW’s targeted 18-34 viewers would have any nostalgia for the 80s. I honestly don’t understand how anyone thought it would succeed.

I think “crappy stuff” is a good category to put FRINGE in. Good idea.

90210′s 18-49 is horrific though, I know that’s not the demo The CW really cares about but still, a 1.0? Really?