Elementary

[The Man]

See, I see quite a big difference from Lie To Me (haven't seen the others on your list, though I've been led to understand The Mentalist is also based on a very specific skill set) - Lightman relies almost exclusively on his knowledge of psychology to solve crimes. Indeed, nearly every plot development in the show is driven by his reading of facial expressions and body language, to the point where it became a crutch when it wasn't used believably in the later episodes (which is probably, when combined with the Flanderisation of most of the cast, a large part of the reason why it got cancelled). While Holmes does rely on psychology to a certain degree, it's far from being the only thing that drives his investigations in this show. When compared to the BBC show, I will certainly agree that it's not done nearly as elegantly or impressively in this version. But I'm not really sure how they could have done it as effectively without being accused of plagiarism, since much of what established Holmes' abilities as an investigator in that show was based off of camera work, onscreen text and other technical means. (And actually, now that I think about it, the Guy Ritchie films do something rather similar, though not identical, in a number of cases). I'm not really sure how they could have done anything like that without being accused of plagiarism.

[Citizen Bleys]

Are you people seriously comparing British and American versions of TV shows and expecting the American one to measure up? That is a once in a lifetime event and it is called The Office.

[The Man]

I'm not. I explicitly said in my first post that it was extremely difficult to imagine it measuring up to the British version.

[Miriel]

Not even comparing it to the BBC version, I thought it was pretty weak television. Not terrible, but not good at all. Worse than equivalent crime solving shows. Shows like Lie to Me aren't exactly award winning shows, but I still liked watching them on occasion for mindless fun. Elementary didn't engage me at all. I thought it was boring, I thought the leads weren't organic in their roles. Sherlock especially felt too try hard. I bet it gets a full season at least though. It's just mediocre enough to appeal to a wide audience.

[The Man]

It's just mediocre enough to appeal to a wide audience.

Every time I hear anyone say something like this, I cringe. Mediocrity is what appeals to a wide audience? Do you honestly believe anyone intentionally looks for mediocre television? "I have a limited amount of time in a day, so what I'm really looking for is mediocre television." No. People watch television because they find it interesting or entertaining. If they don't find something interesting entertaining, why would they bother watching it? People don't watch television because it's bad (unless they're intentionally looking for something to mock, which isn't a large enough demographic to make a show successful). They watch it because it has qualities they find desirable in a television show.

This is not to say that anything that large numbers of people watch is necessarily good (this is obviously not the case in any universe in which Jersey Shore exists). But your line of reasoning appears to be that people watch television because it is mediocre. This is an absurdly elitist and completely unrealistic line of reasoning to take. If people watch a show, it is because it has qualities they are looking for in a piece of television. If a show is mediocre but still successful, it is much more likely that the people who watch it are looking for something that is completely independent of quality than that they are intentionally seeking out So Okay It's Average television. I mean, at least a show that is bad is fodder for mockery, but what can you do with mediocrity, unless there's something about it that appeals to you?

Anyway, Lie to Me got pretty bad towards the end, with Lightman becoming almost a caricature of himself, and the plots got convoluted to the point of nearly breaking suspension of belief (although I still didn't stop watching, mostly because I kept hoping the show would find its earlier quality). This was way better than most of the third season. It also sounds like you're expecting the pilot of this to be as good as later episodes in other established crime dramas, which seems like a faulty comparison, because most shows (especially shows where a lot of the drama stems from the interaction between the leads) rely on character interactions that take a long time to set up. Many great shows had pilots that were rather unremarkable. Hell, apparently Babylon 5 took an entire season to find its footing. (still haven't watched that yet though).

[Miriel]

You kind of really totally misinterpreted my whole point. I never said that people watch TV shows BECAUSE it's mediocre, I said that the show itself is mediocre and that it's just mediocre enough (ie: not horrible, and not brilliant) that it will find an audience.

People who watch crappy shows don't always know they're watching crappy shows. Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience. Look at Parks and Recreation. I think it's the most intelligent comedy on television right now, but it loses out to shows like Two and Half Men. By, a LOT. P&R gets around 3 million viewers whereas Two and Half Men even without Charlie Sheen and with that little kid now being an obese teenager gets around 12 million viewers.

That's the kind of trout I'm talking about.

Elementary got about 13 million viewers. That is HUGE for such a lackluster show. Now granted, PBS is not a major network but Sherlock premiered in the US at just 3 million viewers. The number of people who watch a show rarely correlates with the quality of a show. The point is, Elementary is not smart enough to scare people off. It's mediocre and I think enough people will find it "just ok" enough to keep tuning in.

[Del Murder]

Americans love mediocre. CSI, NCIS, and their various spinoffs are top shows and Mitt Romney is a presidential nominee.

[The Man]

You kind of really totally misinterpreted my whole point. I never said that people watch TV shows BECAUSE it's mediocre, I said that the show itself is mediocre and that it's just mediocre enough (ie: not horrible, and not brilliant) that it will find an audience.

People who watch crappy shows don't always know they're watching crappy shows. Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience. Look at Parks and Recreation. I think it's the most intelligent comedy on television right now, but it loses out to shows like Two and Half Men. By, a LOT. P&R gets around 3 million viewers whereas Two and Half Men even without Charlie Sheen and with that little kid now being an obese teenager gets around 12 million viewers.

That's the kind of trout I'm talking about.

Elementary got about 13 million viewers. That is HUGE for such a lackluster show. Now granted, PBS is not a major network but Sherlock premiered in the US at just 3 million viewers. The number of people who watch a show rarely correlates with the quality of a show. The point is, Elementary is not smart enough to scare people off. It's mediocre and I think enough people will find it "just ok" enough to keep tuning in.

I was hoping you weren't trying to say what it looked like you were trying to say, and I'm still not sure I'm fully understanding it, but I think you, in turn, have misinterpreted my argument.

I outright acknowledged that a lot of what is popular is not just mediocre but terrible. And it is quite true that many very good shows do not find an audience quickly, or even ever (though honestly, P&R isn't even the example I would have used for this, Arrested Development is a much better example as it struggled with its ratings throughout its existence and as a result was brought to a conclusion long before it deserved to be).

However, it's not a hard-and-fast rule. Mad Men is a brilliant show and millions of people watch it despite the fact that it's on a cable channel that probably only 30% of the country even gets. Game of Thrones is a very good show (I would describe the first season as outright brilliant, the second season as less so) and it also gets millions of viewers despite being on a network that probably even fewer of the country gets. Modern Family is a brilliant comedy and 13 million people watched the season 3 première. You're acting like a show has to be mediocre for it to get good ratings, and that's plainly not true.

Furthermore, a lot of these shows that have struggled were screwed with by clueless execs, or any of a number of other factors that have very little to do with the taste of their audience. I'm not that familiar with P&R, but Arrested Development suffered from being a very context-dependent comedy that aired before the age of DVRs, and from network execs that not only had no idea how to market it but often completely failed even to try, and moreover changing its time slot to the point where no one had any idea when it aired. (I could rant about plenty of other similar shows that were similarly screwed - Better Off Ted and Firefly come to mind immediately).

These shows that you're describing as "mediocre" - I'll quite agree that a lot of people who watch them probably can't tell that they're in fact mediocre shows. (I wouldn't even describe Two and a Half Men as mediocre, I'd call it outright bad). However, that's not why people watch them. People watch them because there are qualities in the shows that appeal to them, and because most likely there are not many qualities that do not appeal to them. It's entirely possible that higher-brow television would be a turnoff to a substantial number of Americans, but (1) being high-brow does not mean a show will always be good, and (2) just because some people will not watch it does not mean it will not nonetheless get good ratings.

I would posit that a major part of the reason Elementary got so many more viewers than Sherlock is because it's on a major network that has resources to market the hell out of it. PBS/BBC can't afford that kind of resources in this country. It's like comparing the votes a Green Party candidate gets to the votes a Democratic Party candidate gets. Of course the Democrat gets more. He has infinitely more marketing behind him. That doesn't necessarily mean that people like his policies better. (Of course there's also the additional problem that people think voting third party is throwing your vote away, but ya know). If the BBC gave Sherlock to one of our major networks to run, and as many resources were put behind promoting it as were put behind Elementary, I suspect their ratings would be much closer together.

Anyway, I would never describe something that's "not horrible, but not brilliant" as "mediocre", since "mediocre" is often considered as being "barely adequate", or even "not satisfactory, poor, inferior", so it's quite likely that part of our disagreement comes from semantics.

Americans love mediocre. CSI, NCIS, and their various spinoffs are top shows and Mitt Romney is a presidential nominee.

They're not top shows because they're mediocre, though. They're top shows because they not only entertain many people but also because they don't offend many people. Of course, not offending people is a characteristic of many mediocre shows, but there's a lot more to mediocrity than that (and plenty of non-mediocre things are also generally not offensive).

And Mitt Romney is the most reviled presidential nominee from a major party in a long time, so I'm pretty sure he wasn't a <s>bad</s> good example.

[Del Murder]

I think there is a difference in semantics. I don't see mediocre shows as 'bad'. More like ordinary, average, nothing special. CSI and NCIS are certainly nothing special, but they aren't bad. Elementary is too. People obviously will not watch a show unless it appeals to them. The appeal of Elementary is that it is your standard crime show, which many people love, with a Sherlock Holmes twist. There's nothing special or extraordinary about it, at least from what I saw. Sherlock on the other hand is very extraordinary and special. Americans seem to not like quirky or special things unless they are marketed and presented in a very specific way. Fortunately for Elementary, it is not quirky or special so it won't have to deal with that issue. It is perfectly mediocre.

I think Miriel's point is that Elementary is not quirky enough to put off the average American, but it isn't terrible either. So it does have a good chance of finding an audience and lasting a while because it has that 'average crime show' appeal.

[Miriel]

However, it's not a hard-and-fast rule.

Never said it was a hard and fast rule.

You're acting like a show has to be mediocre for it to get good ratings, and that's plainly not true.

Nope, never acted like this. Who would ever suggest anything like that? Of course tons of great shows get great ratings. What are you going on about?

being high-brow does not mean a show will always be good

Nope nope nope, never suggested this was the case.

However, that's not why people watch them. People watch them because there are qualities in the shows that appeal to them, and because most likely there are not many qualities that do not appeal to them.

Pretty sure I clearly said no one goes out LOOKING specifically for something mediocre.

You are waaaaay overthinking this. Building up in your head all these random arguments that I never even touched on.

It's really really simple. It's not that great of a show, but it will still do moderately well in ratings. That's all.

[The Man]

Never said it was a hard and fast rule.

You made a number of statements that suggested that it was very often the case. I think that is far from established.

Nope, never acted like this.

Really?

Really smart intelligent brilliant shows tend to have a much harder time finding a LARGE audience.

There are a rather substantial number of examples of smart, intelligent, brilliant shows that have found LARGE audiences. To the point where saying they "tend to have" a "much harder time" seems like a pretty strange statement to make.

Pretty sure I clearly said no one goes out LOOKING specifically for something mediocre.

You explicitly said it will find an audience BECAUSE it's mediocre - "it's just mediocre enough... that it will find it an audience". I am saying that it being mediocre (or not) has nothing to do with why it will find an audience. It will find an audience (or not) because it has (or doesn't have) qualities people like. Those qualities have little to nothing to do with "mediocrity".

I think there is a difference in semantics. I don't see mediocre shows as 'bad'. More like ordinary, average, nothing special.

One of the definitions of "mediocre" in my dictionary and at dictionary.com is "not satisfactory, poor, inferior". This squares with how I've generally seen it used - if people meant to say something was "average" they would use "average" or "nothing special" or something like that. "Mediocre" has a much more negative connotation than "average".

May be a regional usage issue, though.

To put it another way, if there were a seven-point scale these would roughly correspond to the rankings:

Terrible - Bad - Mediocre - Average - Good - Excellent - Classic

Sherlock on the other hand is very extraordinary and special. Americans seem to not like quirky or special things unless they are marketed and presented in a very specific way.

Sherlock is certainly extraordinary but I don't think it's really any quirkier than any of the other adaptations of the Holmes canon I've seen. It's a bit more British than some of them; that's about the only thing I can see that makes it potentially offputting to American audiences. Most of my friends love it, although admitted my friends are probably not a representative cross-section of American television audiences, but the reception has been extremely positive consistently enough that I'm fairly certain that if it were the subject of a more extensive marketing campaign it would be able to find a much larger audience. As I've said, I think the main reason Elementary got so much larger ratings is because it was marketed much more thoroughly.

The "standard crime show with a Sherlock Holmes twist" summation is a fair argument - that is a legitimate reason that people would want to watch it. That is not what I was seeing above.

[Del Murder]

Your scale looks about right. I would definitely put Elementary in the Mediocre-Average range there, closer to Mediocre.

[The Man]

I'd put it at average to good. So I guess our reactions aren't that much different.

That said, this is just a pilot so I'm not putting too much stock in their reaction to it. As I said above, a lot of shows take awhile to find their footing. It hasn't done any grave injustices to the Holmes canon yet so I'll probably keep watching as long as it continues not to do so and continues to be at least reasonably interesting.

[Miriel]

There are a rather substantial number of examples of smart, intelligent, brilliant shows that have found LARGE audiences. To the point where saying they "tend to have" a "much harder time" seems like a pretty strange statement to make.

Nope, not really strange. Find me shows that are brilliant that can match the ratings giants like American Idol or NCIS.

A lot of the really creative, smart, and well acted shows are no longer even on network TV anymore, in at least a small part because I think they wouldn't survive there. Shows like Mad Men and Breaking Bad average about 2.5 million viewers. Before you start going off in that weird "she mentioned this, she MUST MEAN THIS OTHER THING AND HOW DARE SHE FAIL TO MENTION A, B & C as factors!!" line of argumentative posting you're currently binging on... Yes, cable audiences are going to be smaller than national broadcast networks. Yes, lots of people view online or illegal where Neilson can't factor in viewership. Yes marketing, yes, these aren't "family friendly" don't watch these shows etc etc etc. Yes yes yes.

But I don't know who would be silly enough to claim that if Mad Men were on network TV, it would have a huge audience like Big Bang Theory (which is a good show, but not a truly great one). I would say that if Mad Men were on regular TV, in its first few seasons it would definitely have been a show repeatedly on the bubble and up for possible cancelation.

Don't take my comments for more than they are or invent arguments to debate about.

I watch a lot of mediocre shows because sometimes, all you need is something to pass the time or engage you 20 minutes (hello, How I Met Your Mother!). There's nothing BAD about that or something wrong in calling a spade a spade.

Also, obviously, everything is just my opinion. You are free to think however you want, including the idea that Elementary is a good show.

[The Man]

I haven't ever been trying to argue that if Mad Men or Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or something like that aired on a major network it would ever have the same kind of ratings as American Idol. That's absurd. But it would not be unthinkable for one of them to get seven to ten million viewers an episode, if they were promoted right and aired on a network everyone in the country could watch. To me that certainly qualifies as a "LARGE audience".

I mean, let's face it, Game of Thrones is already a colossal cultural phenomenon. How much bigger would it be if it were on a network everyone in the country could watch? (To be fair, it couldn't be aired on broadcast television because of all the sex and violence, but let's just pretend it could for the sake of a hypothetical argument - I'm too lazy to come up with a show on HBO/AMC/something like that that could be aired on a network in the same form). The second season averaged about 3.9 million viewers an episode on the first airing alone (10.3 million if you count all airings). Surely a major network would be able at least to double the 3.9 million figure for the first airing.