View Poll Results: What did you think?

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • 10 - Great

    0 0%
  • 9

    0 0%
  • 8

    0 0%
  • 7

    3 50.00%
  • 6

    0 0%
  • 5

    1 16.67%
  • 4

    0 0%
  • 3

    1 16.67%
  • 2

    0 0%
  • 1 - Bad

    1 16.67%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    The artist formerly known as "KryptonSite" KSiteTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 03
    Location
    Burbank, CA by way of Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    18,472

    Loved It? Hated It? What did you think of "All For Nothing?"

    What did you think?

  2. #2
    New In Town
    Join Date
    Feb 15
    Posts
    45
    These episodes are traditionally the ones that focus on a non-Oliver character, usually Laurel and the last two seasons on Dinah. So I was expecting something like this and I'm glad it's about Dinah rather than Rene or Curtis. At least I have some sympathy for her left.

    I wish they hadn't made me like Vince just to kill him off. After this episode, I'd rather have Vince and Thea added to Team Arrow and let Rene, Curtis and Dinah go off and do their own thing. None of the three of them seem to feel any need to save Star City. For Curtis it's a game, for Rene it's all about him and the chance to shoot guns. Dinah seems to be doing it for the right reasons but she's still more about her own needs ("I'd rather have a team that I trust" says the woman who had been keeping secrets from them). I understand that she wanted to save Vince because she loves him but Rene and Curtis should have helped find the bomb instead of leaving Vince's death in vane.

    Quentin, she's not Laurel and you can't turn her into Laurel. I get that you want you daughter back but focus on the one who is alive on the Waverider and the foster daughter standing in front of you.

    It was a clever trap by Cayden James and Anatoli to confound out heroes. But who is the traitor? I'm afraid it's Richard Dragon and he's just a thug.

  3. #3
    Site Groupie President_Luthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 04
    Posts
    3,183
    Now that they're strongly indicating that there is a string-puller driving Cayden's schemes, it makes me wonder if it's someone external or are they hiding in plain sight. Is Dragon flying low on the radar only to play out a long game, is Anatoly really content to play second fiddle to Cayden, or is it a past enemy waiting for the right opportunity to blindside them all? I'm thinking Anatoly is smart enough to position himself so that he'll land on the strongest side and he'd cast Cayden aside out of sheer opportunism and survival.

    The problem with a large roster, not unique to Arrow, is that the show can run out of time or space to properly develop secondary characters. While I didn't mind how they fleshed out the Dinah-Vince relationship here in flashbacks, I feel it's work that could have been done earlier this season. What happened to Vince might have been more impactful had they laid out some of that groundwork sooner.
    The plus is that it's a reminder that E-2 Laurel/Black Siren is a villain from another earth, and not the Laurel they knew and lost.

    The show may be setting up a Black Siren redemption arc, fans may be anticipating or even wanting Bad Laurel to turn good -- but I can't say I'd want that. I'm ok with an unrepentant E-2 Laurel because ... she is a different person who just happens to look like Quentin's dead daughter. In this fantastical world with time travel, magic and superpowers, Quentin (and maybe in a meta sense, the fans) want to reset/reverse/walk back Eleven Fifty Nine and bring back Laurel somehow. This is where it falls apart for me.

    Most of the team except Quentin got closure re: Laurel in Ep. 100. He was the odd man out, and now they're really dragging out the 'Quentin seeking closure' theme, aren't they? He fell off the wagon and briefly thought he was Prometheus in S5, and in S6 he feels a weird connection to E-2 Laurel. Meh. It's tiresome at this point. I wish the Dominators abducted him too last year, so he would have shared in the team's making peace with Laurel being gone.

    Paul and Katie did a good job with what they've been given, I just feel the show could give them much more creatively than what might amount to just a sappy melodramatic arc. They've been spinning their wheels creatively for some time with Quentin, not to mention some of the other veterans too, and it's come home to roost in S6.

    I would call the split between the old v. new team as a detente. They're not allies or teammates yet, but circumstances have forced them to thaw relations somewhat to try to work together ... and they couldn't even do that properly. And I'm not taking sides either, I think they're all idiots for allowing this situation to fester this long. If Cayden and/or the mysterious shot-caller hurts them further, they have only themselves to blame -- newbies AND vets.

    And, yes, Oliver's "apologies" do suck even though he says they're not apologies. He may have experienced evolution over the years in adjusting from lone wolf to team player, but I see it more as incremental growth from him, with the sort of one step forward-two steps back development that used to frustrate the heck out of me about SV Clark. (It's all your fault, Jor-El.)

  4. #4
    New In Town
    Join Date
    Mar 17
    Posts
    11
    Honestly, I just hated the episode. The flashbacks were pointless. I was intrigued about Vigilante when I didn't know who he was. The flashbacks were too repetitive and didn't really flesh out anything I didn't already know. They love each other and they both "died." What else is new? Quentin and his faith in bringing back Black Siren, useless. The new team, annoying, whiny, and useless. The league of villains, barely see them on screen and poorly developed.

    The writing is just terrible this season. Hopefully they show who is pulling the strings soon and it's someone at least half as interesting as Prometheus or Slade.

  5. #5
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,800
    I gave it a seven still despite being rather uninteresting to me. I've seen so much worse still, lol. The flashbacks at this late point basically were a flashing neon sign saying "VINCE DIES TONIGHT". If they'd shown their love story earlier, MAYBE I would have cared now? Maybe not.

    I tend to think that the Newbs let themselves get played and in the end, it was for nothing. Obviously, Vince couldn't turn on his come in the middle of torture so of course it was a trap and a distraction and they played right into it. Had they all gone after the bombs, then James wouldn't have been free to issue the kill order on Vince. But divided, both sides failed. I was forgiving of Dinah for going after him, she was probably too emotionally compromised to be of any use in the search for the bombs, but she should not have let Rene and Curtis go with her. That was just turning their back on the city because it was inconvenient. And for that, I judge them. There was a bigger goal at stake and not just one life but hundreds of thousands (or more, I'm never sure what the population of Star City is supposed to be)

    Vince getting caught was also frustrating because he barely tried to escape. He's litterally standing right in front of the villain HQ. Maybe make a run for it first? Or here's a crazy idea, take out Cayden in the private server room that no one else goes into? Then no one would have known there was a problem.

    Also, even with the beam on Dinah's chest trapping her, couldn't she still scream? Drop bits of the ceiling on James and BS? Do something besides just wait for Vince to die? And also, why didn't they try to kill her as well? Missed opportunity?

    Rene was insufferable with that comment about getting PTSD from hanging in the bunker when HE is the rat in the group.

    But it was nice to see Alena again.

    Quentin is off his rocker in thinking BS is his daughter. Glad Thea at least is no longer drinking the Kool-aide. Even if BS later "repents" it's pretty much too little too late at this point.

    Still enjoying Oliver's measured and mature responses to the newbs constant accusations and barbs. No, he wasn't there to apologize. In the past Oliver has through his actions shown he will put his loved one's lives second to saving the city. This group, can't seem to understand making that same sacrifice. But it's not something I'd expect everyone to be able to do, to make those hard choices so I won't be too mad at Dinah for not yet getting it. I liked that Oliver was willing to let her know it wasn't all in vain even if their victory was still small, but it's eye rolling for Dinah to be all on revenge mode again. So last year.

    Some great action scenes from GA and Spartan in the field. Return of the motorcycle was fun too. Too bad Oliver couldn't have shot a tracer arrow onto each truck or something like that.

  6. #6
    Site Groupie President_Luthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 04
    Posts
    3,183
    The Flash would be considered a superhero with the support, if not outright consent, of the Central City authorities to operate essentially as a vigilante. The closest GA and team ever came to that level of civic approval was S3 when they had SCPD acknowledge the Arrow's good works in public. He also had Capt. Lance and ADA Laurel mostly back his play in official channels. But let's not kid ourselves: Team Arrow are vigilantes, outlaws who operate outside the parameters of the law. Do-gooders, but still outlaws. They hold no badges while in costume, took no formal oaths (outside of Oliver's "save this city" ones) to city, state or country.

    I bring this up because, as outlaws who have to be one step ahead of the authorities to continue operating, one of their own ratting to the cops or feds is serious business. Were Oliver and friends actual criminals, Rene would be shivved in custody or at the first opportunity. As it's Team Arrow, the biggest penalty is dismissal and as much as I can sympathize with Rene choosing his daughter over his team (he's not the first member to put the team second in favour of personal interests) -- in their outlaw world, there is no grey area -- he is a rat. Under this outlaw code, of all the newbies, his journey back to their good graces should take longer.

    It's not impossible, and I have an issue with Curtis who has one foot in and one foot out -- he's on the new squad but he's also still in business with an old team member. And Diggle wouldn't be at 100 percent without him. It's odd and I'm surprised it's not as big a deal as it should be. He may think there is no conflict of interest between business and his vigilante work, but it makes me question how any of them could be cool with someone so comfortable sitting on both sides of the fence and hopping one side or other when it's convenient or profitable.

    Maybe I'm bingeing on too much Sons of Anarchy and see deceit and betrayal everywhere, but Curtis is either 10 steps ahead of everyone and is savvy in the office politics sense, biding his time until the fallout settles and he can side with the "winning" faction. Or (more likely) he's not good at strategizing or playing politics and, while not a rat ... his scruples are perfectly okay with keeping one foot in the old team and one with the new team.

    He seems like a fan cheering for the Pats to win the Super Bowl -- while wearing an Eagles jersey.

  7. #7
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    "Arrow" overnight ratings for "All for Nothing":

    http://www.greenarrowtv.com/arrow-al...atings-report/

  8. #8
    Site Groupie President_Luthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 04
    Posts
    3,183
    The ratings are low (again), but as the article points out, it's still higher than plenty of other CW shows.

    The whole ratings system is in flux at present with all the changes in technology (DVR's, streaming services, etc.) and all the networks are currently trying to find out how to more accurately measure the eyeballs that eventually watch their programming -- even if it doesn't happen live.

    We are moving into a "post-Nielsen ratings" world and while the networks still tout the coveted 18-49 demo, it's clear that the "old" models of just tracking those eyeballs live are not as reliable (or accurate) as they once were.

    There are declining TV viewers, yes, but this is TV landscape-wide. Everyone's viewership is down as more and more people are just cutting the cord regardless of the programming and moving only to internet-based platforms.

    And more of these ad buyers who want that 18-49 demo are recognizing that dipping TV ratings in general are more of a measurement issues problem and only partially as a result of viewers simply dropping their TV watching. The networks are playing catch-up, relying on a aging audience measurement system that hasn't adapted to today's technological realities.

    Not to nerd out on ratings too much, but I guess the bottom line is these networks still rely on imperfect ratings to some degree because they have few options, at least until a new/better/more accurate method arrives. Their takeaway from the ratings data (much of which we don't get to see in public, only the basics) would seem to be adjusting to this evolving way of measuring audiences -- beyond overnight ratings -- which in this rapidly changing TV and ratings universe, is increasingly becoming a less accurate picture than even five years ago.

  9. #9
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    @PresidentLuthor, good points about how the change in viewing habits and what it means for traditional 'live' ratings. Here is an article on the subject:

    http://harvardpolitics.com/books-art...-internet-age/

    I've never paid much attention to ratings before I joined the "Arrow" online fandom, and discovered that some fans (especially the Olicity fandom) seemed to use ratings as a means to elevate their own favourite characters/ships and diminish the value of other characters/ships. In fact, in the early seasons there was a steady stream of tweets (often directed to Guggenheim and other producers) and tumblr posts which claimed that a supporting character that I personally didn't find very interesting and an interaction which I viewed as just another aspect of a large web of Oliver interactions were apparently considered SO key to the show's commercial success that it would have tanked/been cancelled without the arrival/promotion of Felicity Smoak.

    Also, in typical shipper fashion, these same people would persistently claim that any focus on Felicity's "rival" Laurel would inevitably lead to low ratings, an idea which seemed to be based on the assumption that average viewers shared the biases and dislikes of their own online shipper fandom. Heck, there were even elaborate charts which connected any fluctuation in the ratings to the amount of Felicity/Olicity content: they went up when Felicity/Olicity/OTA had some focus, while they went down when other aspects were in focus. This preoccupation with ONE supporting character and ONE ship in a series which ostensibly was an action/adventure show about a vigilante saving his city was something I had never seen in any of the other fandoms I've participated in.

    Maybe that's why I found it amusing that ratings suddenly ceased to matter when it became evident that Felicity/Olicity/OTA had more or less zero impact on the 'live' ratings....I mean, season five, when both Felicity and Olicity were put on a backburner actually had better ratings than season six, and the big drop in ratings between season four and five had little to do with less Felicity/Olicity, and much to do with a generally acknowledged decline in the quality of the plotting and writing. I do realize that the lack of interest in ratings as a way to measure a character's importance and popularity also has to do with changes in viewing patterns which make 'live' ratings less important. However, I still find it noteworthy that the same fans who seemed to attach more importance to fluctuations in the ratings as a sign of a certain character's popularity/lack of popularity than the rest of the fandom now claim that these same ratings are irrelevant. I mean, I have not seen a single Oliciter suggest that the steady decrease in viewers and demo during season six in any way indicates the waning popularity of Felicity, her storylines and her marriage.......while the relative lack of Felicity/Olicity was very often cited as the main reason for the poor ratings in S5!

    Anyway, I definitely agree that 'live' ratings have become much less crucial for a show's survival/commercial succes than they were in earlier decades. However, this change can't have been happening ONLY during the last two seasons....and yet it seems that in season four 'live' ratings were still an important talking point for the very same fans who now claim they are irrelevant (e.g. the alleged large drop in the ratings which happened after the the Miraculous Recovery Olicity Break Up, when Felicity literally walked out on Oliver!). But apparently 'live' ratings went from being very relevant in seasons three and four (and partly in season five) to becoming obsolete in the lowest-rated season of them all....


    In general I think 'live' ratings can give an idea about the relative popularity of a show. CW shows will never have the kind of ratings that the big network shows get (e.g. "This is us", which is doing very well in 'live' ratings, despite the changes in viewing patterns). However, if a CW show that is in its 14th season gets better ratings than a show in its sixth season, it says something about its perceived quality and direction, as well as about the loyalty of its fandom. It's true that "Arrow" deserves props for starting the whole superhero/comic book television trend, but it's also a fact that it's currently the lowest-rated superhero series, which shows that there are currently more casual viewers who're interested enough to catch the Flash 'live' than there are Arrow viewers who're prepared to tune in every week. And even if we weigh in the Netflix/streaming views, the other CW superhero shows still beat "Arrow", since they ALSO have a large audience who watch the show on other platforms than the traditional ones.

    Finally, for shows which aren't financed in other ways (e.g. cable/Netflix) shows, ad money from commercials during 'live' broadcasts is still an important source of revenue, and hence they cannot be totally irrelevant for the CW or the producers. Many fans feel that the production values for "Arrow" have gone down quite a bit since the first seasons, which must be due to the fact that the network gets considerably less per 30-second spot than they did in the earlier seasons. The very same citizens that Oliver are supposed to protect hardly exist visually anymore, and there is such a shortage of sets that the action seems to take place in a pretty confined universe. So, even if the CW makes money in other ways, reduced revenue does have an impact on the overall quality of the production.
    Last edited by evaba; 02-04-2018 at 04:23 AM.

  10. #10
    Forum Whiz Amarice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 14
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    861
    Watched 20 seconds with Quentin and Black Siren from that episode as it was included in Best of the Week. Pleasantly surprise the best of the week from "Arrow" was not Oliver baking an omelette or some ridiculous television hacking. Okay scene, but I'm wondering what Lance is expecting to happen here? It's high time to bring back Doctor Pressnall as someone is in a need of therapy for real. Jokes aside, I guess in S6 Lance will eventually end up killed by his alternate daughter.

  11. #11
    Site Groupie President_Luthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 04
    Posts
    3,183
    I keeping going back to Beauty and the Beast in terms of shows with low ratings inexplicably continuing seasons beyond the time we think it should have been cancelled, based on decressing viewership. It made money in international sales and probably in streaming deals, and TPTB crunched the numbers and decided it was worth making more seasons even if BatB's ratings were dropping. I never watched the show, I couldn't get past one episode but I gather it had become a guilty pleasure type of viewing for its shrinking but loyal fanbase. Eventually they paid the piper, but it happened later than expected.

    Some of this is undoubtedly at play for Arrow and its superhero cousins. Ratings still matter for ad revenue, but with this source dwindling, all shows have to now diversify how they make bank and apparently the Berlantiverse, as middling as its quality is, still makes money internationally and via streaming deals with services like Netflix. They are willing to ride out low ratings as long as those alternate income sources continue to make it worth their while, and I suspect Arrow and Flash will be able to end their runs on their own volition, long before those revenue streams dry up.

    If were talking straight-up popularity, it would seem The Flash and possibly Supergirl based on their ratings are now doing the standard-bearing that Arrow did in earlier seasons. This is where I have to scratch my head. None of these Berlantiverse shows are particularly amazing in quality. If anything, they are consistently ... average. Some good eps. and quite a few bad ones. None of them are Usain Bolts here, they're wildebeests running in herd together for the most part.

    Arrow's low S5 ratings do not reflect that it was arguably Arrow's best season, quality-wise, since S2. Flash's higher S3 ratings do not reflect that it was one of its weaker seasons quality-wise to date. This discrepancy between popularity and quality seemed bigger to me last season. This season, I'd say the ratings are closer to the mark, as The Flash S4 is a bit better than S6 Arrow so far.

    For me, ratings matter up to a point. And yet, they don't either in other aspects. I have little doubt the network's schedule juggling of Arrow where I am is due in part to its slipping ratings. But at the same time, they still post and air ads, promos for it weekly, they are spending money to do that ... so they still "value" it, maybe not as a ratings maker but in other ways aka branding as a sci-fi/genre friendly network, etc.

    I'm rambling on a tablet, but at minimum I'd say ratings do matter to me -- except when they don't.

    As for Quentin and his bizarre need to find closure for Laurel's death with a complete stranger (a villain no less!), I must agree @Amarice --- Mr. Lance, make an appointment with Dr. Pressnall. I beg you. Please.

    Dude lured E2 Laurel to a warehouse, so he could play slides of E1 Laurel and make some connection with her. Yeah, it was weird. The kids today would call it: cray cray. He's messing with his head -- and E2 Laurel's!

    Get him help, Thea. No one else is paying attention.
    Last edited by President_Luthor; 02-03-2018 at 08:13 PM.

  12. #12
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    @PresidentLuthor, I think we agree on most points concerning ratings. My point was more that even in times when 'live' Nielsen ratings were more important as an index of a shows popularity, the idea that often minor fluctuations in ratings over a season can somehow be used as a measurement of the mainstream popularity of a certain character/ship (or as an argument against a certain "rival" character/ship) is IMHO a typical sign of fandom partisanship. The persistent Oliciter trope during seasons 1-5 (as documented in hundreds of tweets, tumblr blogs, forum posts and comment sections) was that a supporting hacker character, her romance with the protagonist and the prominence of a certain constellation of TA were absolutely KEY to "Arrow's" popularity and commercial success.

    These claims are IMHO not consistent with the facts. No online fandom, no matter how many twitter "trends" they manage to produce, or how many shipper polls they win, can credibly claim that the viewing patterns of the audience at large (as measured by Nielsen families) reflect THEIR character/ship preferences. Furthermore, the amount of convention goers who pay big money for special photo ops or attend special panels can't really be a measure of a certain character's/ship's mainstream popularity. That's because those who attend cons are a drop in the water compared to the millions of casual viewers. So, tweeting photos of an actor's autograph lines in order to prove or disprove their mainstream popularity seems like a rather futile and partisan attempt to use totally circumstantial "evidence" to prove a point.

    However, the importance of Felicity and Olicity for the Nielsen ratings has been a common/persistent trope ever since Felicity got that brief guest spot and became a fan favourite for two seasons (because her "break out character" luster started to wane already in season three, and by season four/five she had become the most contested character in the Berlanti-verse). So, when ratings are declining, despite the continued focus on Felicity and her relationship with Oliver (step-Mommy storyline, hacker plots deviced to enhance her importance, the Olicity marriage and the resurrection of OTA), it's understandable that the anti-shippers take a page from the Oliciter book and use the ratings argument AGAINST these same characters/storylines....although there are probably many other explanations as to why 1.5 million viewers/0.6 of the demo no longer watch the show 'live'.

    Now, as for the ratings themselves, they are actually less important in countries where the television output isn't primarely controlled by commercial interests. I grew up with public television, where viewerships and demos have much less immediate impact on the actual funding or longevity of a series. In European public television viewership numbers are certainly important as a measure of a show's popularity, but writers and producers don't have to desperately tailor their content to suit this or that demographic, because unlike mainstream American TV-shows the series they produce are not basically vehicles for selling cars, or pain pills or political candidates.

    In that sense European etc. public television writers/producers have more artistic freedom than American writers/producers (at least those on the big commercial networks). That's probably the reason why English, French, etc. etc. series are less formulaic and sometimes more challenging (in the sense that public channels can afford to produce series that might not cater to mainstream tastes and therefore only get a small but devoted viewership). I think we're seeing this trend in the US as well, with many innovative series coming out on cable channels or Netflix. What I want to say is that the way a program is funded (no matter if it's televized drama or any other type of show) has a serious impact on its content and direction. Public television writers and producers can lay out their story arcs and character trajectories without fretting about demos and social media reactions, and a season is usually completed before it's broadcast. In such a media environment it makes sense to say to ratings/downloads/streaming/online buzz etc. are not very important, because the public channels don't rely on these sources of funding and free PR....they're financed by compulsary fees (which are pretty low in most countries).

    In the US the situation is quite different, and in the past the big networks would axe a series of it didn't generate enough revenue for the shareholders, no matter if the quality was good, or if it had a devoted core viewership. There would also be changes in content/direction over the course of the seasons according to viewer preferences (the most drastic example of this is "Family Matters", where Steve Urkel more or less took over this Black blue collar family show). Nowadays commercial media outlets get their revenues from other sources, and that's why even low-rated shows survive for much longer than they used to do. However, the principle is the same: it's the amount of money a show can generate which is considered the prime measure of its success, and if it fails to generate enough revenue, it's less likely to get fourteen seasons like "Supernatural". This is also an interesting difference between series on public television and series on commercial networks: on public television a drama series usually doesn't go on and on for years, like SPN. Seasons are often planned in advance and the end date is more or less set. That gives a cohesiveness to the storytelling which is sometimes lacking in commercial television shows, where writers really cannot plan that far ahead.

    I also see your point about the lack of a clear correlation between (perceived) quality and popularity/ratings. On the other hand, I still believe that those series which provide quality entertainment and which have some kind of artistic vision usually find a large enough audience. Even in our diversified media climate word of mouth plays an important part, and I kinda doubt that "Arrow" is getting much positive buzz through word of mouth in these days. In fact, it seems to generate mostly boredom and frustration, and I would guess that many fans who stopped watching 'live' don't even try to catch up via other platforms. So, declining 'live' ratings can IMHO still be seen as one of the signs of where a show stands in relation to earlier seasons or in relation to other series in the same genre.
    Last edited by evaba; 02-04-2018 at 05:37 AM.

  13. #13
    Site Groupie President_Luthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 04
    Posts
    3,183
    While I think SA and the showrunners like the idea of Arrow running as long as Smallville or Supernatural, I really hope it doesn't and they sensibly wrap it up sooner.

    I have no concerns that it will be cancelled. What I am concerned about is that they continue this trend of mailing it in, creatively speaking, and coasting to the finish line ... something I feel the whole Berlantiverse has been doing lately, not just Arrow, though I understand that Arrow tends to bear the brunt of issues that are representative of Berlanti's universe.

    I too live in a place where public broadcasting still has a large (and reliably funded) presence. But it's also a place where US programming has encroached for decades and dominates the airwaves. While a lot of our public programming is quite good, they do still make clunkers (they tend to be homegrown sitcoms) from time to time, but they aren't removed from air because they don't rely on ratings to the degree their private sector tv relatives do. So it can be a double edged sword. We'll get high quality programs but also get stuck with misfires that would have been canned on a private network.

    What scares me about changes in ratings is that Nielsen is now trying to figure out how to harness social media as a gauge of audience interest. And the problem appears to be "reliability".

    Bringing it back to Arrow, when we have these fandom campaign when shippers band together and denounce S5 because they didn't like the back to basics approach and how it affected Felicity etc. ... and the networks see that on Twitter or Facebook, they could choose to see it as accurately reflecting the larger audience or take such things with a grain of salt and see the story through aka let S5 play out regardless of what Twitter or reddit tells them to do. The first would be naive or reckless while the latter seems to be the more sensible approach. I feel they went this route in S5, and they made a better season as a result.

    In S6? Not so much. I think the pendulum has swung back to Arrow coddling social media again. If ratings are becoming less accurate, then trying to use social media as a gauge is wildly misleading and rife with hyperbole. I land in the middle. I don't take the extremes on either side too seriously, esp. on social media.

    Nielsen wanting to explore that route, it makes me queasy. May the gods help us all if reddit is going to be the future arbiter of quality.

  14. #14
    Site Groupie Shelby Kent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 12
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,791
    Quote Originally Posted by President_Luthor View Post
    While I think SA and the showrunners like the idea of Arrow running as long as Smallville or Supernatural, I really hope it doesn't and they sensibly wrap it up sooner.
    I think for the sake of his acting career, SA would be wise to wrap it up after S7. I guess, depends on how much risk he is willing to take. If he wants the "safety" of having a job w/ Arrow for 3-4 more years b/c he's not sure he can get more work (or maybe I should say "much work") after Arrow, then he should hang around as long as possible. But every year that he stays w/ Arrow is a year where he's not able to go out and try for other roles (generally). He's not getting any younger and there's no shortage of actors out there competing for the work. So staying with Arrow also means running the risk of lost opportunities.

  15. #15
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Kent View Post
    I think for the sake of his acting career, SA would be wise to wrap it up after S7. I guess, depends on how much risk he is willing to take. If he wants the "safety" of having a job w/ Arrow for 3-4 more years b/c he's not sure he can get more work (or maybe I should say "much work") after Arrow, then he should hang around as long as possible. But every year that he stays w/ Arrow is a year where he's not able to go out and try for other roles (generally). He's not getting any younger and there's no shortage of actors out there competing for the work. So staying with Arrow also means running the risk of lost opportunities.
    I suspect that this is what happened with Jensen Ackles, who to my mind is a more skilled/expressive actor than Stephen Amell. With his looks and talent Jensen could (with a large bit of luck!) have pulled "a George Clooney" and gone on to bigger and better things. Or to take another example, former WB/CW teen series actor Justin Hartley, who went from the soaps to a highly popular and highly regarded mainstream show like "This is us".

    On the other hand, I can understand that when you have a family to support, the safety of a cult show with a fanatically loyal fandom is alluring, and that's probably why Jensen and Jared keep on portraying the Winchester brothers for season after season. Also, with no disrespect to SA or J/J, the convention circuit is extremely profitable for genre actors, so it's not like they're suffering financially from remaining on a small network with modest ratings, rather than trying to make a career in the movies or on a major network. On the other hand, if you want to stay in the business even after you're not CW beautiful and ripped, it probably pays off to play a variety of roles, even if they don't attract the kind of super-loyal (and cynically speaking, profitable) audience that genre/shipper-heavy shows generally attract.
    Last edited by evaba; 02-04-2018 at 10:58 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •