Ratings =/= quality. I would think Two and a Half Men proved that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NBC affiliate kills HANNIBAL airings. COME ON, SALT LAKE CITY.
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Ratings =/= quality. I would think Two and a Half Men proved that.
Monocle
Member
Since when do ratings have a consistent correlation with quality?
And again, television ratings have nothing to do with quality.
Once again, I didn't say that the ratings were the be all end all judgement of its quality, just that it can be used in the measurement of such, and that its ratings were not helping.
There are plenty of popular shows that are garbage and plenty of high quality shows that are ignored, I don't dispute that. I don't even dispute that Hannibal is a quality program. Its ratings are not helping its case, thats all.
There are plenty of popular shows that are garbage and plenty of high quality shows that are ignored, I don't dispute that. I don't even dispute that Hannibal is a quality program. Its ratings are not helping its case, thats all.
But it can't. There's no correlation on broadcast television.
Trent Strong
Banned
It's metacritic rating is only 68. Apparently the critics aren't too impressed either.
They can think it sucks all they want it doesn't make the people you quoted wrong because it's fantastic television. Also it's Metacritic.
AgentOtaku
Member
Pretty much this
I watched half of the 1st episode and just stopped because I knew this shit was gonna get canned real quick. Interesting stuff, but what were they thinking when they thought this would be a huge hit or something?
First of all, you can't grade television shows the same way you grade films, because it's a continuous medium.
Second, these aren't games. That's the highest broadcast average from this year minus Nashville (who's quality has been dubious after its second episode and has had an incredibly rough first season), Last Resort (no longer on, also a show that failed to achieve critical acclaim or buzz after its pilot), and Elementary (a genuinely good show, though not as good as Hannibal).
Even if we were to use TV ratings and some sort of correlative process with a metacritic average of the season, or something, you wouldn't find anything that's statistically significant. It's not a measure of quality, it's a measure of appeal and broadness.
Trent Strong
Banned
Why would I put more stock in what a few people on Neogaf say than what professional television critics say? Why should I believe you that it's fantastic television more than I should believe the guy from The New York Times, who says it's bad?
Based on everything Ivy has said, it seems the odds are in it's favor. But I guess everyone likes playing network executive.
Why are TV critics anymore qualified to judge television than the people watching it week to week?
So why bother commenting on a thread about it?
Why don't you believe the guy Hitfix, EW, or TVGuide? Or did you just cherry pick the worst review?
For television, especially a first year show, a 68 on metacritic is good. This isn't videogames. Also, most scores on TV shows are based on the pilot and maybe an episode or two after. Metacritic doesn't work for television, but if you're going to use it, you can certainly go ahead.
Here: I spent my entire day doing television and working on structure, story, and execution. I find Hannibal to be absolutely fascinating. Get me a NYT job reviewing, I guess. This doesn't make me any more relevant than anyone else on GAF to judge a show. We should put some stock in reviews if there's overwhelming critical consensus one way or another. I wouldn't expect much from a show with the pilot having a sub 30 score on metacritic. I might expect a lot from one that's 90+ (this never happens because this is TV, not videogames). Have you seen the show? What do you think of it?
Because unlike most of the people who have posted in this thread, I live in SLC so I am someone who is being affected by this censorship.
TV critics are also largely bandwagoners and base their entire opinion on the pilot and/or TV trends.
Henchmen21
Banned
No it's not. I've lived here for 25 years and I'd rather live somewhere else. It's cultivated desert and people with sticks up their asses about everything. It gets hot as hell during the summers here.
Trent Strong
Banned
Most people on GAF are in their 20s. Most of these TV critics are much older and are more experienced and seasoned.
faceless007
Member
Trusting the Metacritic score is idiotic. There's no transparency as to how they assign numerical scores to reviews that don't have them, not to mention the way they weight them, so it's utterly useless.
But if you must, look at this instead:
Critic score distribution:
Positive: 20 out of 31
Mixed: 8 out of 31
Negative: 3
Not too shabby.
But if you must, look at this instead:
Critic score distribution:
Positive: 20 out of 31
Mixed: 8 out of 31
Negative: 3
Not too shabby.
This is also true. The Following was apparently a GREAT PILOT!!! until it was awful when the critical consensus shifted that it didn't treat violence in a fair way. Why? Sandy Hook? Who knows.
AgentOtaku
Member
I've been catching up in the thread and yeah, I see your point. It sucks though as they already removed in from Hulu
Fun fact: TV reviews are a relatively new phenomena. At least, television reviews that engage with the medium on a deeper level. Again, a 68 on Metacritic makes it one of the highest reviewed drama pilots of the broadcast TV season. And again, you're more than welcome to watch the pilot, for free!, online to come up with your own opinion on the damn show.
I've been catching up in the thread and yeah, I see your point. It sucks though as they already removed in from Hulu
That sucks. But yeah, I really hope this catches on and Fuller can see his plan through for the show.
I think you are confusing Film critics and TV critics.
I generally find critics (of any media) to be extremely cynical and jaded so I'll take the word of the every man over them any day of the week.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
But being the best show on network tv period isn't a high standard?
That doesn't mean that their opinions automatically hold more weight than anyone else's. They can write well, booya. I trust the opinions of people with similar tastes over "seasoned critics". Mad Men might be the second coming of drama, but I can't stand sitting through it.
The Following had a pretty great pilot.
And then immediately shit the bed in episode two, and continued to leak diarrhea. Not cause it was violent, cause it was offensively awful and dumb.
Trent Strong
Banned
Why do you keep telling me that these aren't video games? I know that video games have insanely inflated scores from critics and that TV shows don't. I know that a 68 Metacritic score is better for a TV show than a game. Just because I'm on GAF doesn't mean I only pay attention to video game reviews. I spend a lot more time watching TV than I do playing games.
No, trusting a Metacritic score is not idiotic. The best TV shows like The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and Enlightened also have the best Metacritic scores. And terrible TV shows, like The Big Bang Theory has low Metacritic scores. Metacritic is usually pretty acurate.
Your personal opinion of the best show on network tv is not necessarily a high standard to me, no, and I am sure that you likely don't hold my opinion on the quality of network shows very highly.
And at no point did I say my opinion should hold more weight than anyone elses, just that I felt qualified to comment as I am one that is directly affected by this censorship.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
I'm confused now. You don't watch the show, so you can't really judge it on its quality. At least I've watched it so I can.
You don't watch the show, so it doesn't affect you at all whether it's censored or not unless we're speaking in purely philosophical and ethical terms as in it effects your sensibilities more than anything.
I keep mentioning it because your failure to grasp that a 68 for a TV pilot is a very positive score. Your initial statement that critics are mixed on Hannibal is wrong, at least if we're going to go off meta critic scores for the pilot. 20 positive reviews, 8 mixed ones, and 3 negative ones. That great for TV. And no, The Big Bang Theory does not have a terrible meta critic score, not even in its first season. Enlightened's first season had a 75 average. That's 3 points higher than Nashville. Metacritic doesn't really work for TV except in the extremes.
And again, what did you think of Hannibal?
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
I don't think he watched it.
Or at least if he did, he didn't share his thoughts on it in the Hannibal OT
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
I don't disagree, I was just confused at how you were phrasing all your statement.
Qualified to post on the censorship, yeah. Quality of the show, no.
Enlightened's amazing first season only has a 75 and was stupidly criticised for being "awkward, challenging, just another middle aged lady dramedy. AMY IS ANNOYING AND UNLIKEABLE! WHO IS SHOW FOR?"
TV critics can be the idiots in the audience too.
TV shows alter their episode schedule all the time without reason. This one at least had a reason, shitty as it may be. It also easy to get the episode if you want to see it, I think someone posted it was for sale on itunes.
Trent Strong
Banned
The first season of The Big Bang Theory got a 55, which is bad. I guess I was looking at season 2 of Enlighted, which is in the 90s. But I haven't seen Hannibal, and I'm not going to watch it, because I've heard it's really violent and gory, and I don't get off on violence. Torture porn and gore-fests are not my bag. I'll stick to watching Top Of The Lake, which is a really good mystery that doesn't rely on extreme violence to stay interesting and tense.
There is a big difference between altering the episode schedule and actively removing it from OTA broadcasts (which is my primary means of watching television). KSL has a history of censorship and I refuse to watch their local programming because of it.
Great, you're so much better than the rest of us.
faceless007
Member
1) Those are all shows that have had multi-season runs and thus had a longer time to find their footing and improve over time. Hannibal's had 4 episodes FFS.
2) Metacritic seems to be weighted toward reviews of whole seasons, not individual episodes, so reviews are likely to be higher when viewing the entire season as a single unit, as opposed to episode-by-episode where flaws are more apparent.
3) Breaking Bad S1: 74 (23 pos/4 mixed)
The Wire S1: 77 (15 pos/4 mixed)
Mad Men S1: 77 (26 pos/5 mixed)
These are "the best Metacritic scores"? That's only 6-9% higher than Hannibal so far, which again, has only had 4 episodes. Note that on an absolute count it has more 5 more positive reviews than The Wire (another reason the average is worthless!)
4) If you actually look at the breakdowns and read the blurbs they choose, it's glaringly obvious the numbers don't have much relation to the review and the weighting makes even less sense. That might be a good way to discern the critical consensus on your own, but trusting the score to do that is nonsensical.
5) To the word in bold: exception that proves the rule.
So you have no idea how the show uses violence, yet you make a blanket judgment about the show based off what you've "heard" and then compare it to a miniseries that is better because it doesn't rely on violence and torture-porn, which is the hallmark of Hannibal, a show you've never seen. Cool.
Also, TBBT got a 57 in its first season. That's not a bad metacritic score for TV. It's mixed.
LOL, neither does Hannibal but keep letting others decide your opinion for you, I guess.
I'd go as far to say that there hasn't been a show that's used the repercussions of violence as well as Hannibal in a very long time. It is real and visceral and haunting. But I heard it was torture porn from some guy I guess so what do I know.
I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about Fuller voluntarily skipping episode 4 because of the kids killing kids thing. Yeah, the Mormons refusing to air the show is dumb.
So you refuse to watch it, then make judgments on it's quality, then say the show isnt really for you? Great post.
I wouldn't say its the Mormons, I would say that the idiots who make the decisions at KSL who happen to be mormon.
Trent Strong
Banned
I'm not saying I am. The only reason I brought up Metacritic at all is because Hannibal defenders were saying that low ratings does not equal a bad show (which is true, I agree with them there). But I was just pointing out that not only does Hannibal have bad ratings, but it's not particularly highly rated by the critics either.
Also, later seasons are almost always higher rated than first seasons on metacritic because those who did not enjoy usually don't review the next season.
That was really all I was implying lol. Sorry if it came across differently.
Deified Data
Banned
Are we actually debating whether a high Metacritic score somehow imbues a work with greater quality? Does anyone have that list of how Metacritic weighs their sampled reviews handy?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked