HAWAII FIVE-O LOSSES CONTINUE TO MOUNT

[landtuna]

I want TV to return to the days when dramas were written with more than eye-candy and SFX. If I wanted to watch a video game I would have bought one instead of turning on the TV.

Then don't turn on the TV; problem solved. Maybe not enough of the rest of the public doesn't think rehashing the ancient past is all that wonderful an entertainment option...in which case, the issue isn't with the programmers--who have always been seeing to meet the then-current tastes of the audience--but with the population as a whole who simply don't want what you do.

Not a solution. I don't care whether today's younger viewers ever know or appreciate the old Defenders or H-5-0 shows or not. I simply want to watch something with a bit of intelligence and a storyline that doesn't smack of every other show on network TV.

IMHO "programmers" (and their network execs) simply want to emulate the last popular show in the easiest, most economical way to maximize their revenue. It hasn't been about quality for a long, long time. Otherwise we'd have something besides idiotic so-called "reality" shows and cop-lawyer-hospital clones to watch. Although programs like "Lost" are not my cup of tea either look at the popularity - because it was different. Also notice the clones like "The Ev3nt" that attempt to ride the coattails.

People will watch intelligent shows if given the chance. But it's always been tougher and more of a financial gamble to do quality. Much easier to produce junk.

 

[imhomerjay]

And the ultimate news flash--your definition of quality is not the only one out there.

Yeah, hard to believe, perhaps, but true.

Your tastes are not the sole ones that define what is or isn't worth watching. So, yes, not watching is a solution. Because if enough people really feel the way you want to imagine they do, then the profit-driven businesses will go where the profit is.

For me, it is a simple solution, indeed. I watch what i want. If something I don't like does well, more power to 'em. If something I like gets cut short for lack of interes, oh well, sometimes it goes that way. But in a world where you can get pretty much anything you want (not all of it free, since it actually costs money to make content), a few hours of TV on a few of hundreds of channels are but a drop in the bucket.

 

[landtuna]

And the ultimate news flash--your definition of quality is not the only one out there.

Of course it isn't and I wouldn't expect any one person to agree with any other one person as to what constitutes 'quality'.

A previous poster asked why some of us want H-5-0 to fail and I explained my reasons. I don't consider H-5-0 a 'quality' (other than perhaps the scenery) show and don't watch it - so I already have turned it off. But me not watching does not, in itself, send the message strongly enough.

I never watched CSI: Miami or 24 after the first few shows either and quit watching the original CSI and NCIS when they got stupid. But that isn't enough. I want all shows like it to fail in the hope someone in charge of programming will realize they are putting crap on the air and replace it with something better. I know they can and, if they do, I will watch. Until then, no.

 

[Nate Wesley]

So because you don't like a show that millions of other people DO like--one that you admittedly never had any interest in anyway--it needs to fail?

Millions of people like American Idol too but that doesn't mean it is a worthwhile use of your time.

Whether I like 5-0 isn't the point.

\
It actually is the point if you want to stay on topic, but go on.

The point is it isn't well written or well acted and is just a pot-boiler cop show like virtually every other cop show in recent seasons.

Your opinion. It's not reality for those who actually like the show.

I want TV to return to the days when dramas were written with more than eye-candy and SFX. If I wanted to watch a video game I would have bought one instead of turning on the TV.

Please. Stop talking as if Hawaii Five-O is the only show available.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

??? Soooo HAWAII FIVE-O is cancelled now? ???

 

[imhomerjay]

Um, yeah, the one from the 1970s is.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

Ok, so 9 more episodes, then what? "I guess we'll have to wait and see..."

"The CBS series still places first in its timeslot, most closely challenged by Castle. That ABC series registered a 2.7 and 10.66 million viewers this week, up 4% from last week. If Hawaii 5-0′s downward trend continues, it won’t be long before the show loses in the timeslot and could end up in danger by the end of the season. For now, it’ll almost certainly get an order for nine more episodes bringing it to a full season. Beyond that, we’ll have to wait and see."

Source: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/hawaii-five-0-ratings-18765/

 

[vchimpanzee]

Have not tuned in since the premiere. I found the writing in episode one to be way over-the-top
and rather bad in general. And in my experience, series that start out with bad writing early on do not improve
with time. (the sole exception perhaps being Star Trek, TNG)

They seem to be aiming at a male audience, and now that they are up against
Monday Night Football I think the timeslot is proving to be an issue.

Luckily, for those of us in the West Coast, its not an issue, since the game is over about 90 minutes before Hawaii Five-0 starts. Since I'm guessing you're correct in the assertion that the show is geared towards males, CBS is probably expecting to see an uptick in male viewers (and consequently overall viewers) in January once the monday NFL games have ended. The majority of the remaining Monday night programs tend to be aimed at females to counterprogram Monday Night Football- so males will have little on broadcast to compete for their attention once football is over.

I realize now my question is pointless since this isn't on ABC any more, but what aired after the game in your part of the country?

 

[oldiesfan6479]

I realize now my question is pointless since this isn't on ABC any more, but what aired after the game in your part of the country?

You mean on ESPN, on the left coast?

The same thing that was on ESPN everywhere else--it's one feed to all zones.

 

[gregg75]

F.Y.I.

Down another 6% on Monday Oct. 18th.

As someone posted earlier, nothing great (yet) about this year's crop of new shows.

 

[Carmine5]

Can the new Five-0 get any worse?

It's bad enough we have to endure the infantile banter between McGarrett and Dan-o. Now we have some pudgy, full of ticks and quirks coroner to suffer with. It's Five-0 as a kind of low-rent CSI. The people controlling the franchise need to be kicked off the show, forced to take some creative writing courses and produce infomercials for penance.

Scott Caan and Alex O'Loughlin have zero chemistry and will probably never have it. A better pairing is O'Loughlin and Daniel Dae Kim. Those two work well together and bring some much needed credibility to show. I can almost believe they're cops.

If the producers want to save this show they need to 1) get rid of Scott Caan, write him out by sending him back to NJ 2) write more scenes with Kim and O'Loughlin, 3) and give Grace Park more to do. Actually Ms. Park doesn't really need to do anything, she can just stand there. But give her more screen time along with some more beauty shots of Hawaii (love those aerial shots).

 

[Yeziknoradio]

??? I don't know. You were expecting CSI Hawii?

 

[Carmine5]

??? I don't know. You were expecting CSI Hawii?

What I was hoping, if not expecting, was for a little originality even from this remake. Instead we get a tired formula du jour used with some success on countless other shows--such as the CSI franchise.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

??? Sorry, I DO mean Hawaii, not Hawii. LOL! Not sure how that typo came to be!

 

[imhomerjay]

Something to ponder--consider all of the ratings in the context of the big picture. If half of the top 10 network shows deliver under a 10 rating, that speaks more to the entire landscape than any given show (and as some outlets have pointed out, maybe NBC wasn't completely off track in questioning the value of costly scripted fare at 10 pm).

 

[LKellerIII]

Something to ponder--consider all of the ratings in the context of the big picture. If half of the top 10 network shows deliver under a 10 rating, that speaks more to the entire landscape than any given show (and as some outlets have pointed out, maybe NBC wasn't completely off track in questioning the value of costly scripted fare at 10 pm).

You've got a point, but what are the alternatives to "costly scripted fare?" Scripted comedies and dramas have been a TV staple for the entire history of the medium. The Leno debacle seemed to prove that a 5 times per week talk show won't work. Reality shows at 10:00? Possible, I guess, but many viewers (myself included) are turned off by fake "reality" shows, and there seem to be a limited amount of good 'reality' ideas.

Bring back game shows in prime time? Doubtful.

It seems to me that the future of TV may actually be more, but cheaper scripted fare. Basic cable is moving in that direction, with more new cripted dramas than ever before. Look at USA, AMC and TNT, for example. But these shows are produced with smaller casts and lower cost of production - and fewer episodes are produced each "season."

My prediction is we'll see more of this model on the major networks as they try to compete.

 

[imhomerjay]

If someone had the guaranteed answer, they'd be rich. But that aside, the notion that Leno "didn't work" is oft-repeated, but on the whole, the return to scripted dramas (mostly, anyway, as they have a reality show slotted in there, too), has, on whole, brought lower ratings than Leno (and naturally at a higher cost).

Not challenging the "history of the medium," but maybe the time has come to begin questioning whether history simply isn't going to also be future. What's being seen with the creeping of DVR use is people using the 10 pm hour to catch up on something earlier. They're not being turned off just by reality shows, they're just not watching anything at that hour in a steadily, albeit gradually, increasing fashion.

Could following the cable model more closely work? Possible. But they can do it with fewer hours to fill in primetime thanks to repeats, off-net fare and movies. If you're going to follow the model in one way, to hope to realize the full measure of success, you might need to follow it through in others, too.

 

[landtuna]

The Leno debacle seemed to prove that a 5 times per week talk show won't work.

I think it only proved that Leno didn't work. And I wouldn't classify his 10 o'clock show as a 'talk' show. It was more a mini version of the previous Tonight Show.

I think a real talk show would work provided the host was someone who is able to deliver interesting subjects on his/her own in addition to quality interviews with a wide variety of genuine people (NOT Hollywood flotsam or people trying to promote their latest recording, movie or book).

Reality shows at 10:00? Possible, I guess, but many viewers (myself included) are turned off by fake "reality" shows, and there seem to be a limited amount of good 'reality' ideas.

Bring back game shows in prime time? Doubtful.

With the exception of a very few cable-oriented "reality" shows most are just another version of a game show. If someone could capture a compelling true reality show I think it would work but shows like "Big Brother" and the like will not cut it.

What about a true variety show geared for the adult audience?

Likewise, a true game show ("Jeopardy" for example) might work but the production would have to be of nighttime quality instead of syndicated daytime fare. And if it were something that the audience could play along with so much the better. At that hour it would obviously have to be adult-oriented but there are lots of adults who enjoy games (although the demo might be an issue as it would probably skew older).

Or what about a game show "hour". Five rotating game shows each airing on a single day of the week but having some continuity with each other.

It seems to me that the future of TV may actually be more, but cheaper scripted fare. Basic cable is moving in that direction, with more new scripted dramas than ever before. Look at USA, AMC and TNT, for example. But these shows are produced with smaller casts and lower cost of production - and fewer episodes are produced each "season."

My prediction is we'll see more of this model on the major networks as they try to compete.

Am I having a flashback or is this exactly how TV once was? In my youth I remember TV shows being pretty bare - small casts, no SFX, simple stories. If you wanted a big, glorious adventure you went to the movies which were in color, had more presentation time, SFX and big sound.

Then TV tried competing with the movie theater and partially succeeded - until the costs rose and competition from other entertainment sources divided the viewing pie. Now it appears we're headed back to the 50's where shows will be less expansive, simpler and without "a cast of thousands".

That's OK with me. They don't call the 50's the "Golden Age of Television" for nothing.

 

[justpassingthough]

I think the future also lies in the cable model of fewer episodes per season, but that is going to be a hard sell to the affiliates and to Nielsen (in terms of using sweeps month to set ad rates).

Personally, and I know I don't speak for everyone, I love that scripted cable dramas and comedies air for 13 straight weeks then wrap up. The divided scheduling of broadcast primetime shows seems antiquated. Of course, with broadcast networks trying to compete with cable, spreading out a season virtually guarantees that you keep most fans of the show around for 22 out of the 52 weeks a year.

I feel a sense of relief, even when its a show I love, wraps up its 13 week run. It allows me to better program my DVR and make more efficient use of my television viewing time. I love television, but I also like the internet and have a million interests outside the home. Realizing that watching 2 to 3 hours of television most nights was just too much, I made a pledge to drop a bunch of shows at the end of this summer. I dropped 3 times as many broadcast shows versus cable shows, because they require less of a commitment. For example, I dropped "the Office" and "30 Rock" even though they are 'quality' shows I've watched for years because I just couldn't commit to another dragged out September to May season. However, I kept "Psych"- a far less quality show- because it involves a much smaller commitment of my time and even its split season seems far less dragged out.
Perhaps the networks should consider moving to a similar model. If they can find quality reality shows or game shows or talk shows to occupy earlier hours of broadcast, they could fill the later hours of primetime with dramas and comedies, run them on 13 or 16 or 19 weeks consecutively, and possibly keep viewers around who no longer wished to commit to the 9 month dragged out scheduling.

 

[radiorama1]

So anyone care to speculate about what CBS will throw on during Five-Oh's timeslot once it gets canned? A string of TPIR Million Dollar Spectaculars perhaps?