web
counter
 

How the Ratings of the 10 Best "Canceled ... Too Soon" TV Shows Stack Up Against This Season's Bottom-Rated Shows

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (34)



Claire-dasdfdDanes.jpg

You want to rail? You want to rage against that motherfucking light? You want something bo kvetch and complain about? Do you want to throw down the goddamn universe and give it a giant front-wedgie right in its Venus and then swirly its Uranus in a black hole? Then I implore you to look at the ratings numbers below.

Here are the number of viewers, on average, for the 10 Best “Canceled … Too Soon” TV shows of all time (the big four networks, only, so “Veronica Mars,” “Deadwood,” and Showtime’s “Dead Like Me” are not included).

“Sports Night”: 11.5 million viewers (2 seasons)

“Twin Peaks”: 8 million viewers (2 seasons)

“Undeclared”: 7.3 million viewers viewers (17 episodes)

“Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip”: 7 million viewers (One season)

“Freaks and Geeks”: 6.77 million viewers (18 episodes)

“My So Called Life”: 6.6 million viewers (19 episodes)

“Pushing Daisies”: 6.1 million viewers (22 episodes)

“Arrested Development”: 6 million viewers (3 seasons)

“Wonderfalls”: 5 million viewers (13 episodes)

“Firefly”: 4.48 million viewers (14 episodes)

Now, here’s a baseline: Last week’s 20th ranked show, “Castle” scored 11.6 million viewers, or about the same number of viewers as “Sports Night” in 2000. “Sports Night,” despite critical acclaim, was cancelled after two seasons. “Castle” despite being a mediocre procedural with absolutely zero cultural value, is now in its fourth season and, as the 20th ranked show, will likely run a few more seasons.

Here’s another baseline: The “Breaking Bad” fourth season finale scored 2.9 million viewers, a whopping number for AMC. That show has 16 episodes remaining, and will be allowed to finish its run on cable. “Mad Men,” in its peak fourth season, averaged 2.92 million viewers, or nearly two million viewers less than “Firefly,” which was aired out of order and cancelled midway through its first season.

Now, let’s compare the “cancelled … too soon” TV shows to the ratings of the bottom 10 shows last week (again, only FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS are included because I have no idea how to compare the CW’s ratings, except to say that “Veronica Mars” had about 2.5 million viewers and “America’s Top Model,” now in its 17th season, reaches around 1.5 million viewers).


10. Parenthood: 5 million (3rd season)
9. Prime Suspect: 4.9 million
8. Whitney: 4.88 million (full-season pickup)
7. Parks and Recreation: 4.1 million (Fourth Season)
6. Kitchen Nightmares: 3.7 million (5th Season)
5. 20/20: 3.44 million (1978 - Present)
4. The Playboy Club: 3.39 million (Canceled)
3. Community: 3.37 million (Third Season)
2. Free Agents: 3.38 million (Canceled)
1. Fringe: 3.24 million (Fourth Season)

So, as you can see, despite lower ratings — sometimes significantly lower ratings — many of the bottom-rated shows on television right now are in their third, four, or even fifth seasons (or 17th cycle). “Freaks and Geeks,” however, was cancelled after 13 episodes because it only received 6.7 million viewers. “The Office,” the biggest hit on NBC, received 5.7 million viewers and is in its eighth season. “Andy Barker, P.I.,” which is probably number 11 on the above list, was cancelled after six episodes just four years ago, despite numbers significantly better than “Community” and even “Parks and Recreation.”

Do you see the unfairness here?

Is there a logical explanation? Of course, there is. Television audiences are fractured. Cable viewers have picked off millions of network viewers during the writer’s strike. Overall ratings are down, so it doesn’t take as many viewers to sustain a show.

The injustice here is that those ten “cancelled … too soon” shows were simply aired too soon. Take “Freaks and Geeks,” “Sports Night,” or “My So Called Life” and put them on the air in 2011 and they’d all be huge hits for NBC. Do I think that their ratings would be as high if they debuted in 2011? Probably not, but where it matters — the 18-49 audience — I am positive that each of those shows could’ve broken two million viewers, which is half a million more viewers than “Community” gets in the demographic. In today’s marketplace, each one of those shows would’ve thrived on cable; in fact, given fewer restrictions, it’s very possible that all ten could’ve been ever better shows. Those shows lived in the wrong time on the wrong networks. Hell, given the right circumstances, “Firefly” could be in its 9th season on the SyFy Network, and we’d all be bitching about how its quality began to suffer after Joss Whedon left to go direct The Avengers.

The simple truth is, they were born at the wrong time. But there is a flip-side: Shows like “Parks and Recreation,” “Fringe,” and especially “Community” never would’ve made it to their 5th episode, much less multiple seasons, if they’d originally aired back in 2000 or even 2005. We’d have never been blessed with fours seasons of the anemically rated “Friday Night Lights” ten years ago. If the networks still held on to the dominating power of the 90s, original programming on AMC probably wouldn’t exist. There’d be no “Breaking Bad” or “Mad Men” or “The Walking Dead.” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” would contain no profanity and have a laugh track. “Sons of Anarchy” and “Justified” would be pilots that never made it to air, and Timothy Olyphant would be doing low-budget porn. Oh, sorry: Bad example.

So, there’s good and there’s bad about the way things are run now. What befuddles me most is that “Two and a Half Men” would’ve been nearly as big a hit in 1999 as it is now.

Go figure.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The 9 TV Actors Who Were Never Supposed To Leave Their Castmates In The Dust | The Ten Most Pirated Films Of All Time. Only One Contains Actual Pirates.









Comments

I forgot how much I loved Pushing Daisies!

Posted by: quirk at October 12, 2011 4:17 PM

I couldn't read the whole thing, because I feel slightly stabby now.

Stabby along with allergic and sinus-y. It's not a good combination.

Posted by: MM at October 12, 2011 4:20 PM

Not sure about the methodology--looking at the average number of viewers for the "Canceled Too Soon" group versus the last week numbers of current shows isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, the last episode of Studio 60 only drew an estimated 4.2 million. The 17th episode less than 4 million. The cancellation makes a little more sense that way.

Posted by: Joel at October 12, 2011 4:37 PM

I liked Arrested Development and Pushing Daises.

That is all.

Posted by: googergieger at October 12, 2011 4:45 PM

Keep in mind demographics and production cost. A show that has 10 million viewers all outside the coveted 19-49 demographic (or whatever it is) is not as profitable in ad time as a show with 5 million viewers in the golden demo. Also, shows like Pushing Daisies (heavy special effects budget) are costlier to produce than a reality TV show etc.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 12, 2011 4:51 PM

This is a little silly. There has clearly been a reverse inflation like trend in TV over the last thirty years, so there is no way that these shows aired now would draw nearly those numbers. The most recent of the shows is Pushing Daisies I believe and even that is from three or four years ago. There is no way that these shows, if they started to air now would get their original numbers. This comparison is pointless.

As people get more and more entertainment choices, their choices will fracture even more. Maybe some of those people watching MSCL back in 94 really wanted to watch a show about cupcakes, well now there are shows about cupcakes.

Posted by: Petrie at October 12, 2011 5:04 PM

And if my aunt had a wang, she's be my uncle.

Posted by: Steve at October 12, 2011 5:05 PM

There are people who think "Studio 60" was cancelled too soon?!?!? Mercy-killing if ever there were one. Even Sorkin fucks up occasionally.

Posted by: Edith at October 12, 2011 5:14 PM

Not on the list, but Journeyman averaged 6.147M viewers over its 13 eps. I miss that damn show.

More or less the same ratings as Chuck. As much as I love(d) Chuck, I would have rather kept Journeyman.

Posted by: logar at October 12, 2011 5:17 PM

Are we also keeping Hulu, On Demand, TivO, and the million other ways to keep up with a TV show in mind? 6 Years ago, I made sure I was glued to the TV every Wednesday (LOST) and Thursday (The Office) night to watch my favorite shows. Now, I've literally been at home on Thursday night and have forgotten that I can watch Community live. I can't recall the last time I watched a show I wanted to watch at its original airing time. And I'm so use to not watching commercials, that I don't know if I could go back to that way. So yea...things have changed pretty drastically in this decade.

P.S. - Are there Neilsen like ratings for things like Hulu and On Demand?? Curious.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at October 12, 2011 5:30 PM

@ Littlejon - It's bloody amazing how we've forgotten how horrid it is to not be able to fast forward through all the commercials, isn't it. The wife and I refuse to start watching a show on its intended night without waiting 25 minutes, so we can just power through them.

As for the article, I didn't even have to look at the list without getting angry, because I knew just looking at the topic that Firefly was going to be on there. And honestly, I think Firefly is one of the reasons why I actually quite enjoy Castle - Malcolm EFFING Reynolds. And Kate Beckett is hard not to look at. The Halloween episode from a few seasons ago sold me on that show until the end, when he came out in his browncoat get-up.

Posted by: johnnyseattle at October 12, 2011 5:54 PM

I feel like Life belongs on this list above most of those shows.

Posted by: DominaNefret at October 12, 2011 6:15 PM

I liked Firefly and Twin Peaks, and I like Fringe. Every other show listed in the column...not at all.

Posted by: Adam C at October 12, 2011 6:16 PM

Nice article. Before I read it, I thought it would be an insubstantial filler piece, but it - and the comments that followed - were actually thought-provoking.

Posted by: Corntree at October 12, 2011 6:17 PM

Nielsen needs to do adjusted ratings similar to baseball. In baseball there is significant changes in league average over periods over time so statistics like OPS+ (versus unadjusted OPS) were created. 7 million viewers when the average for primetime shows is 10 million is a lot different than 5 million when the average is 5 million.

Posted by: dustygator at October 12, 2011 6:18 PM

Dustin, just a reminder, Friday Night Lights had FIVE seasons. Not four. Carry on. This is a depressing article.

(Shhhhh, Alexa. We never speak of Season 2. It NEVER HAPPENED. -- DR)

Posted by: Alexa at October 12, 2011 6:23 PM

Might want to point out that Wonderfalls, while 13 episodes...Fox only ever aired 2 of them I believe...

Posted by: Luke at October 12, 2011 7:32 PM

THIS IS WHY YOU CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS, AMERICA.

All my favorite shows are either cancelled or on the brink of cancellation, but Big Bang Theory is still allowed to exist. If I have to be told when to laugh, you're doing it wrong.

And now the bacon is gone, and I hate everything!

Posted by: lyssie at October 12, 2011 7:54 PM

I'd take Sports Night over Community and Firefly over anything else currently on the air right now if we could let todays cult hits premier and fail yesterday.

Posted by: APOCooter at October 12, 2011 8:17 PM

I'm not really sure how ratings points calculate over time, though. The representation of a ratings point is, what, 1% of American TV households, right? So a ratings point now is more households than it was some ten to fifteen years ago.

Posted by: Jerry at October 12, 2011 9:51 PM

I still haven't forgiven SciFi (I refuse to acknowledge its new "fun" spelling) for cancelling "Farscape" or "G vs E."

The only reason that "Castle" survives is due to our rabid adoration of Nathan Fillion, which is pretty much infallible.

Posted by: Feynmangroupie at October 12, 2011 10:17 PM

I nearly forgot! Forgive me.

Posted by: Alexa at October 12, 2011 11:42 PM

"...put them on the air in 2011 and they’d all be huge hits for NBC."

i can appreciate your sentiment Dustin, but i think you're wrong.
All of these shows would've pulled even worse ratings in 2011. The audience is still fractured, and frankly not that interested in TV.

But even if they were watching, you can not tell me that My So Called Life would play well to an 18-49 audience religiously TIVOing The Jersey Shore.

Posted by: Scott at October 13, 2011 12:05 AM

Also a lot of my gay friends loved My So Called life. I get more crap for not liking that, then my hatred of any pop diva that isn't Kylie Minogue or that one Madonna song. Which I blame Snatch for, for having it on it's soundtrack.

Posted by: googergieger at October 13, 2011 12:28 AM

I blame Whedon for choosing Fox

Posted by: YesPlease at October 13, 2011 6:03 AM

@lyssie: My sentiments EXAXCTLY!

@Feynmangroupie - And yes, it has taken quite a number of years and time apart from Syfy to forgive them for yanking the rug out from under my beloved 'Farscape'

And 'G vs. E' ruled. I think I saw it on Chiller or something by accident when I was at my mom's. Good times.

C'mon 'Prime Suspect', you can do it! America, give Ms. Bello a chance, she'll grow on ya!

Who cares if Stabler is gone from SVU, now, amirite?

Posted by: Teresa at October 13, 2011 6:13 AM

C'mon 'Prime Suspect', you can do it! America, give Ms. Bello a chance, she'll grow on ya!

Can't do it. The stupid hat ruins it for me.

I was a huge fan of the original, and I appreciate that they aren't trying to re-create the original character, really I do. But I don't understand why they keep the name in situations like this. I'm only going to be disappointed if I get Kentucky Fried Chicken when the sign out front says Chick-Fil-A...even though I don't dislike KFC.

Posted by: Wednesday at October 13, 2011 7:48 AM

Doing this list was a waste of time and a couple of people stated a couple of good reasons why (population increase, comparing ratings over multiple episodes of old shows to one episode of new shows. Yet, you also failed to take into account the fact that there are a crap load more of channels now (even though you say you are only looking at the big 4) to distract people away from the traditional channels so of course ratings for any show will be less than the ones in the past. I dont't see how you could have missed that unless you were intentionally biasing your own lists to make a point about what your opinion of what should matter. I prefer your movie reviews over these pointless lists.

Posted by: CajunGuy at October 13, 2011 7:58 AM

Is there a logical explanation? Of course, there is. Television audiences are fractured. Cable viewers have picked off millions of network viewers during the writer’s strike. Overall ratings are down, so it doesn’t take as many viewers to sustain a show.

I guess that paragraph was only in the version I'm reading. I feel special now.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at October 13, 2011 8:41 AM

There's no way to agree with you, Socrates, about your specialness without sounding like I'm calling you "slow," is there?

“Veronica Mars” had about 2.5 million viewers and “America’s Top Model,” now in its 17th season, reaches around 1.5 million viewers

Grrrr. I assume that's due to the show's sponsors and the money they're willing to throw around to keep the show on the air.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at October 13, 2011 8:50 AM

I liked a lot of these shows, and am sad to see them go, but you can't just look at ratings.

It's all about cost of production vs. viewership. And that's not even counting product placement.

Sure, Kitchen Nightmares isn't as good as Firefly, but you only have to pay a few people to keep it running. Most of the other expenses are probably donated for advertising purposes.

A sad reality, but a reality.

Posted by: Jesus at October 13, 2011 12:56 PM

@Littlejon2001 - Nielsen at least does live plus same day ratings now, they may have expanded to live plus 3 (L3) by this point, so DVR viewing is somewhat counted.

Posted by: fenchurch at October 13, 2011 1:06 PM

Firefly wasn't cancelled because of bad ratings, it was cancelled because the FOX Network suits took one look at the production costs, and decided that no matter what, they'd kill the show so they could finance two shitty sitcoms in Firefly's timeslot next season.

Though I think you already know it, it wasn't incompetence, it was malevolence, and I'll never forgive FOX for cancelling what could've been the greatest TV show of all time so they could air four fucking hours of American Idol every season for 10 years.

Posted by: Devil Child at October 14, 2011 5:42 AM

Mad Men is a multiple emmy award winning series on a cable network, which always gets less viewers. Firefly was on a network during a time period when more people watched tv. its an unfair comparison

Posted by: Drew at October 23, 2011 10:21 PM