Elementary

[Miriel]

Of course it's not unthinkable. It would just be harder for those shows than for shows like Law and Order or in my opinion this weaksauce Elementary. Which was kinda my whole point.

[The Man]

I don't really see how. Virtually everyone loves Game of Thrones as it is, in spite of its complexity. I suppose it's possible that virtually everyone who likes complex TV already has an HBO subscription, but I find that highly unlikely, since HBO viewers are a small fraction of the TV viewing populace. I don't see why it would be particularly difficult for such a show to hit 13 million viewing figures on a major network. As I said, when you count all the airings it already gets ten million viewers an episode on HBO. Granted, HBO airs episodes several times, but it strikes me as colossally unlikely that a network wouldn't be able to best those figures on first viewing. Ten million viewers an episode is an average, and the pilot of this got, what, thirteen million? It's highly unlikely it will keep that many viewers. It'll probably taper off to about eight to ten million.

So yeah, don't see how it's unlikely for shows like Game of Thrones to get similar viewing figures on networks. For it to get the same viewing figures as shows like Law and Order? Yes, that is a bit more unlikely. But it's a bit more unlikely for an average show to get that kind of viewing figures too. There are plenty of shows like Law and Order, or American Idol. Most of them are nowhere near as massive as Law and Order or American Idol.

[Del Murder]

Well, Game of Thrones is a bad example because it could really only exist on a network like HBO. Half the scenes have naked people in them.

But the point isn't that it would be impossible for shows like Game of Thrones to gain mass ratings, but that it is harder for them to do so. How many other popular shows like GoT are there versus ones like Law & Order? It's a more uphill battle because for unique shows because people instinctively like what is familiar to them. Cop Shows are a very familiar part of American culture so it's much safer and easier to make a show like that than one like Sherlock or GoT. So that's what Elementary has done and why it has a chance to succeed.

In the end people generally will watch a show if it is great TV, though not always (Firefly and Arrested). But if a show isn't great (ie. is mediocre), it has a much better chance to succeed if it is some derivation of the buddy cop formula versus something fantasy based like GoT. The evidence (all the cop shows currently on air versus fantasy shows) certainly points that way.

[Miriel]

Are you being obtuse? Game of Thrones did not start off with great ratings. Or great reviews for that matter. But of course it has the potential to be something like Lost on regular TV. I never said it was impossible. All I said was that shows that are smart and intense and character driven are going to have a harder time than shows that are easy to watch. The shows you can pop into for gentle mental stimulation before going to bed. Shows like Elementary that are perfunctory in it's entertainment will appeal to people much more easily than shows with lots of depth or violence or too little violence or a host of other reasons.

Look at Friday Night Lights. Arguable one of the best television shows on network TV in recent years. To NBC's credit they really did try and push the hell out of the show. Aggressive promotion, huge favorite amongst critics AND TV execs which is kinda rare.

And every freakin' year, threat of cancelation. The numbers were terrible.

It also had a hugely loyal fanbase, even if it was a small one. But America just didn't want to tune in. It is an amaaaazing show.

[The Man]

Well, Game of Thrones is a bad example because it could really only exist on a network like HBO. Half the scenes have naked people in them.

But the point isn't that it would be impossible for shows like Game of Thrones to gain mass ratings, but that it is harder for them to do so. How many other popular shows like GoT are there versus ones like Law & Order? It's a more uphill battle because for unique shows because people instinctively like what is familiar to them. Cop Shows are a very familiar part of American culture so it's much safer and easier to make a show like that than one like Sherlock or GoT. So that's what Elementary has done and why it has a chance to succeed.

In the end people generally will watch a show if it is great TV, though not always (Firefly and Arrested). But if a show isn't great (ie. is mediocre), it has a much better chance to succeed if it is some derivation of the buddy cop formula versus something fantasy based like GoT. The evidence (all the cop shows currently on air versus fantasy shows) certainly points that way.

I would dispute that, simply because not only are there fewer great popular shows than mediocre popular shows, but also there are fewer great shows full stop than mediocre shows full stop. There is a much smaller pool of candidates to become gigantic successes. How many other shows like Game of Thrones are there, period? There are none. No one else has done fantasy like this, ever. It's quite likely that now that someone has, there will be imitators, but the simple fact is that it was completely unprecedented in American television, it was on a network that maybe a tenth of the country even subscribes to, and it still managed to become a gigantic cultural phenomenon.

And Sherlock is definitely still a variation on the traditional cop show, except the main character is a "consulting detective" rather than a cop. But so is the main character in Elementary. Granted, Sherlock differs in a number of other ways - obviously, there's its quality, and there's the length and complexity of the episodes - but I don't think the latter is really a fair reason for it not to succeed, because people are still familiar with complex crime dramas from film, and many high-quality crime dramas do very well at the box office. Look at L.A. Confidential, or The Town, or Mystic River, or Chinatown. Not exactly box office flops.

[Del Murder]

There's no other shows like Game of Thrones because no one expects a show like that to succeed. And it didn't at first. Which kind of proves the point. Now that it has succeeded, maybe we will see more shows like it. I'd be fine with that.

I would say Sherlock is more of a modern adaptation of the Doyle books than a variation of the modern cop show. Of course you could then say all modern cop shows are just copies of the Doyle stories. Maybe they are.

[The Man]

Are you being obtuse? Game of Thrones did not start off with great ratings.

I... didn't say that it did? I wasn't arguing about the ratings for the pilot. I was arguing about the ratings for the second season. And I don't appreciate the implied insult.

Or great reviews for that matter.

With the exception of a couple of high-profile carpers (Gina Bellafonte being the main one that stands out in my memory), I remember most of the press coverage being quite positive.

But of course it has the potential to be something like Lost on regular TV. I never said it was impossible. All I said was that shows that are smart and intense and character driven are going to have a harder time than shows that are easy to watch. The shows you can pop into for gentle mental stimulation before going to bed. Shows like Elementary that are perfunctory in it's entertainment will appeal to people much more easily than shows with lots of depth or violence or too little violence or a host of other reasons.

Look at Friday Night Lights. Arguable one of the best television shows on network TV in recent years. To NBC's credit they really did try and push the hell out of the show. Aggressive promotion, huge favorite amongst critics AND TV execs which is kinda rare.

And every freakin' year, threat of cancelation. The numbers were terrible.

It also had a hugely loyal fanbase, even if it was a small one. But America just didn't want to tune in. It is an amaaaazing show.

And they also ran Friday Night Lights on Friday night every year except the first one. Appropriate given the subject matter, not so appropriate if you want to turn a show into a gigantic hit. It's called the Friday Night Death Slot for a reason.

I haven't said every great show will turn out huge. But the point you're missing is that not every mediocre show will either. For every show like Law and Order, there are dozens that don't make it, and statistical analysis alone indicates that large numbers of them will be mediocre. Meanwhile, we can focus on Arrested Development, but there are also shows like Modern Family, a complex and intelligent show that with aggressive promotion that does become a cultural phenomenon. We can focus on Firefly, but that would be ignoring shows like Battlestar Galactica (terrible though the ending was) or Doctor Who. It has yet to be demonstrated that the ratio of great shows that struggle with ratings to great shows that become huge hits is any worse than the number of mediocre shows that constantly struggle with ratings to mediocre shows that become huge hits. You're acting like mediocrity alone will be enough to make a show a gigantic hit, and that's plainly not true. The reason such a smaller number of great shows become huge hits than mediocre ones is because there are such a smaller number of great shows.

There's no other shows like Game of Thrones because no one expects a show like that to succeed. And it didn't at first. Which kind of proves the point. Now that it has succeeded, maybe we will see more shows like it. I'd be fine with that.

Most people didn't expect a show like Lost to succeed either, but it did - in this case from the start (and arguably too well, as the first season led people to expect them to maintain a level of quality that was obviously, in retrospect, impossible for them to maintain). And then dozens of people copied it, and a lot of the imitators were pale imitators, and most of them floundered. The one show I'm aware of that really managed to capture the same balance of mystique and character focus, Once Upon a Time, has also become a pretty big hit (although it lacks the moral complexity of Lost, but whatever, can't have everything).

Furthermore, no one ever really expected Game of Thrones to get ten million viewers an episode in the first season, so I'd say that it wasn't exactly a commercial failure. As far as I'm aware, it performed almost exactly as everyone except certain fanboys expected it to.

Like I said above - for every mediocre show that becomes a gigantic hit, there are probably dozens that fail. For every great show that becomes a gigantic hit, there are probably quite a few that don't. But acting like it's harder for a show to become hugely successful if it's a great show? I don't see that. We notice the mediocre shows that are successful more because, well, they're successful. But there are plenty of such shows that don't make it.

I would say Sherlock is more of a modern adaptation of the Doyle books than a variation of the modern cop show. Of course you could then say all modern cop shows are just copies of the Doyle stories. Maybe they are.

Read my mind. Cal Lightman is certainly a copy of Sherlock Holmes. So, from what I can tell, is Monk (I'm not that familiar with the show yet). It even extends beyond cop shows - The Doctor is also a copy of Sherlock (and The Master is a copy of Moriarty). Hell, in the latter case the writers have flat-out admitted it.

[Del Murder]

I don't even know what you are arguing anymore. Let's just agree that every buddy cop show ever made is just copying Doyle's stories and call it a day.

If Doyle was alive today, do you think he would like Sherlock, Elementary, or the Guy Richie movies the best? My money is on Sherlock, but I don't have my time machine built to prove it yet.

[The Man]

It's simple, though maybe I've overcomplicated it: the two of you are claiming, from what I've been able to tell, that it's harder for a great show to become successful than it is for a mediocre one. I'm arguing that this hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated. Yes, there are fewer great shows that are wildly successful than mediocre ones. But there are fewer great shows, period, than mediocre ones, so the ratio of successful great shows to successful mediocre ones is to be expected. Moreover, there are plenty of mediocre shows that never even make it past their first season. So you can't just demonstrate that lots of great shows are unsuccessful. You have to show that not only are lots of great shows unsuccessful, but a larger percentage of great shows are unsuccessful than mediocre ones.

I'm not taking issue with the suggestion that lots of successful shows are mediocre, nor the suggestion that lots of great shows never find widespread success. I am taking issue with the suggestion that it is much harder for a great show to find widespread success than a mediocre one. The American public may have crappy taste, but I don't believe its taste is that crappy.

[Del Murder]

Ok. Well I'm not really arguing that. I'm arguing that it is harder for a great show that tries to be different to succeed at a massive appeal level than it is for a mediocre show that follows proven successful formulas.

[The Man]

Ok. That, I can buy. I would, however, say that a mediocre show that also tries to be different will probably encounter similar problems.

[Del Murder]

Well, yeah, that show doesn't have a chance.

[Psychotic]

The Miriel, The Man and The Murder.

This thread or my idea for a new detective show...?

[Bunny]

Ok. Well I'm not really arguing that. I'm arguing that it is harder for a great show that tries to be different to succeed at a massive appeal level than it is for a mediocre show that follows proven successful formulas.

I neglected to read the massive wall of text that suddenly appeared in this thread and opted to only read things 4 sentences or less. I say the following with the apprehension that 1) it was covered already and/or 2) it doesn't fit in with the rest of whatever else was said here:

Firefly is the perfect example of the "show that tries to be different" and fails to capture a large enough audience to be successful.

I am, against my better judgement, going to sit down and watch this show at some point within the next two days.

[Freya]

So you guys bicker far too much and I'm too lazy to read all the walls-o text. I watched this last night. Sherlock didn't seem as endearing as he should. I didn't think "Oh man this guy is cool I want to follow his adventures!" Like I do for every other Sherlock. I mean it was an OK show though. Still don't like watson being a female but lucy liu didn't do a bad job.