Ratings and Scheduling: Who's the fairest of them all?

[Curio]

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time

Viewers: 4.96 million (#3), A18-49: 1.6/ 5 (#1)

 

Yikes. I knew 4B was going to suck ratings-wise, but I didn't think we'd actually go under 5.0 million this quickly. On the one hand, I'm pleased that the general viewership is just as turned off with the 4B arc as the rest of us on here. On the other hand, I have no faith that the writers will see this as proof that their writing sucks and they'll continue doing lame storylines no one is actually interested in.

[Mathius]

On the other hand, I have no faith that the writers will see this as proof that their writing sucks and they'll continue doing lame storylines no one is actually interested in.

Or they'll pull off a really good storyline that is especially welcome after such a really bad one, thus fooling us into continuing to watch only for them to immediately regress in quality with the following arc. Hey, it happened before!

[FurryFury]

TBH, I'm not even sure it's possible. It's clear they're ALL out of ideas. I'd love another season 3A after 2B, but even 2B wasn't as bad.

[Souris]

This isn't directly Once-related, but interesting and possibly illuminating about Once's longevity: ABC is potentially continuing Castle for another season without its female lead, its creator and an executive producer -- and definitely without its showrunner. So ABC is certainly willing to shake up a longtime show and continue without important people behind and in front of the camera. Stana Katic could still re-sign, but if I were a fan of the show, I'd be worried and cranky right now. Shades of The X-Files!

 

If Nathan Fillion had a seven-year contract (which is what it sounds like, though I don't know any particulars and he could have lengthened it at some point along the way), I'm guessing the Once actors likely do, too. (Always with the possible exception of Robert Carlye, because he's RC.)

[KAOS Agent]

A quick search turned up two separate articles that mention Carlyle's deal as five years - the Variety one is less definitive, but sticks with the five year number. There may be more references, but I stopped at two because these are two separate sources that basically confirm the five year number.

 

My guess is that he will definitely leave the show at the end of his contract next year, though he might be open to a recurring role if they don't kill him off. That said, Once started this year with over 10 million viewers and dropped to under 5 million with the latest episode. I don't expect things to drop quite so dramatically next year, but if they lose even a quarter of their viewers next year, I think Season 5 will be its last. And frankly, I think they're out of ideas, so Season 5 would be a good time to end it.

[sharky]

As much as they may not replace A&E, something is going to have to give next year. I don't know if that means more control by the parent company or what. But I just can't see ABC letting this show go on like that when it sees the potential for a 10 million showing if the story is done right.

I'm still surprised by Carlyle only having five years. His popularity is on par with Nathan and he had a seven-year deal. The good thing is this show isn't like the X-Files or Castle. It's much more of an ensemble that can easily absorb the loss of a character whereas it would be harder if this was just the Emma and Hook show.

[Souris]

Castle has gone from a 2.2 demo rating to a 1.53 this season, and from 10.5 million viewers to 8.16 million. That's not an egregious drop for a show in its seventh season, but it's actually doing worse than Once. But ABC still wants to hang on to it, because it doesn't have a lot else that's not Once or on Thursday nights. A 1.5 is more of a sure bet than some random new show, which is always a crap shoot.

 

I honestly think Once would have to utterly crater for ABC not to want a sixth season. Now, if they somehow hit the pilot lottery and bust out several "Empire"-size hits in the fall, plus Once's ratings tanking below 1.0, then maybe they'd end it with five. But that would have to happen really early in the season for the producers to know in time to wrap up the storylines, which is doubtful.

[FurryFury]

Ratings are down across the board. The only network that has actually risen this season is The CW, thanks to The Flash which is ironically pulling almost-big four numbers (there are a few renewed shows that ended with lower ratings than it gets). ABC is so desperate they're trying to launch a spin-off to a show that gets 1.5-1.6, which is even worse than Once. They do have their Shonda shows, but even Grey's Anatomy slipped lower than 2.0 recently, so nothing's eternal. They are definitely going to squeeze everything out of Castle (and probably betting on the actress accepting the deal) and Once, too. So there's no hope about the execs talking to A&E and reprimanding them - Sleepy Hollow, it ain't.

[YaddaYadda]

Ratings 1.6 for Sympathy for De Vil

[Souris]

Ratings for last night from Marc Berman:

 

8:00 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.16 million (#2), A18-49: 1.6/ 5 (#2)

———-

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.08 million (#2), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#2)

[TwistedandBored]

I think it all depends on costs. I feel like Castle costs less to make than Once. However, I feel like Once is here to stay for a while. 

[Mathius]

Odd that the overall viewers dropped in the second hour, yet the demo number somehow rose.

Anyway, there at least wasn't a drop this week, the same audience from last week stuck.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Mathius

[Emma]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/04/21/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-secrets-acm-awards-american-odyssey-adjusted-down/392401/

Adjusted up to a 1.7 in the finals.

[HoodlumSheep]

Yay for adjusting up! Hoping that it'll slowly rise again for the remainder of the season. What were the ratings for the 4a finale, again? A 1.7? I'm hoping that 4b can at least beat that.

[KingOfHearts]

This season lost over 4 million viewers from its premiere. That's a big drop. (Not saying that means anything, as I'm not expert with ratings, but I can say the numbers have been very low.)

Edited April 21, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[FurryFury]

I've always thought that 4A finale had such low ratings because people thought the previous episode was the finale.

[HoodlumSheep]

I've always thought that 4A finale had such low ratings because people thought the previous episode was the finale.

That's what I thought too. It felt more like a finale than Heroes and Villains did.

[jjjmoss]

Not great: Secrets and Lies tied Once Upon a Time last night in prelim #s.

 

That was the primary bragging point this show had left. Well, maybe finals will change things.

But the consistency and now upward spiral of one which started with shrug-worthy numbers, compared to the plummet of the other which started huge this season, is eyebrow-raising.

[FurryFury]

Ratings are out, flat from last week (1.7). I guess these viewers will watch until the bitter end.

 

UPD: Guess we posted at the same time :) Anyway, I wonder what needs to happen now for the show to fall if even this horrible season still has an audience.

Edited April 27, 2015 by FurryFury

[YaddaYadda]

I guess these viewers will watch until the bitter end.

 

I'm part of these viewers who will watch until the bitter end, but kill off my top two characters and all bets are off.

 

What's maddening is that this show can be fixed so easily.  I think the writers are just bored at this point.

[stealinghome]

Yeah, I wonder if OUAT has hit its bottoming-out point--everyone who's willing to leave has left, and the people still watching will stick it out to the bitter end regardless of what happens. The indicator may be next week's ratings--we all know the finale numbers will rise because it's the finale.

 

What's maddening is that this show can be fixed so easily.  I think the writers are just bored at this point.

I agree that the show could be easily fixed, but I'm not sure the problem is boredom--to me it seems like the problem is the writers have gotten far too excited about a number of TERRIBLE storylines and have such tunnel vision they're not listening to anyone who tells them that it's terrible. I really do think Adam and Eddie have surrounded themselves with sycophantic yes men.

Edited April 27, 2015 by stealinghome

[sharky]

I'm really hoping these low numbers are a wake-up call at the network. Remember when they were keeping a watchful eye on the show during the Frozen run? That needs to happen again. Seriously, something is going to have to happen above A&E at this point to keep the ratings steady or bring them up. I don't see Disney wanting to let go of a company showcase like this, but I also don't see them just throwing money at it and letting A&E keep playing around like this. I mentioned this either here or some other thread about replacing the showrunners. At this point, that doesn't seem likely but bringing in a higher up to at least approve of their season 5 plan between the outline and writing stages seems likely -- and frankly would be welcomed by many of us at this point. Because really, something has to change over there.

[Souris]

Half-hour breakdown from Marc Berman:

 

8:00 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.24 million (#3), A18-49: 1.7/ 6 (#1)

———-

8:30 p.m.

ABC – Once Upon a Time
Viewers: 5.01 million (#3), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#1)

 

9:00 p.m.

ABC – Secrets & Lies
Viewers: 5.73 million (#3), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#1)

———-

9:30 p.m.

ABC – Secrets & Lies
Viewers: 5.76 million (#2), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#1)

 

I included Secrets & Lies just for comparison. Once lost quite a few viewers over the course of the ep, but the 18-49 demo stayed the same -- which is what the network cares about.

[Curio]

I'm really hoping these low numbers are a wake-up call at the network.

 

Sadly, I doubt there will be any significant changes within the writer's room. The best the ABC executives can do is shoot down the more asinine story ideas Adam & Eddy pitch them before the season begins, but I get the feeling the writing goes off the rails during the second half because production is already underway and it would be more expensive to switch game plans than to just execute shitty ideas.

 

Viewers: 5.01 million (#3), A18-49: 1.7/ 5 (#1)

 

That's a new low, right? Double-checked. Apparently not the lowest half-hour break down. Darn, so close to breaking the 4 million mark! (Listen, I still love this stupid show for some crazy reason, but I just want these next couple of episodes to tank. Season 5 is a lock, so now the only fun I can have with this godawful plot line is to play a numbers game and see if we can get under 5 million viewers in the next two weeks.)

Edited April 27, 2015 by Curio

[YaddaYadda]

I think that the person who looks after Once is incompetent.  He's also the same guy who looks after General Hospital and God knows I quit that show a while ago because I couldn't take it anymore.  Incidentally, it's the other show who had a grown man be raped by a woman and the rape victim's wife accused him of cheating on her.  So yeah...

[Souris]

If next week's numbers don't go down a noticeable amount, I think it is safe to say that the current viewing level is the show's floor, and those watching will continue watching regardless of quality or lack thereof.

[YaddaYadda]

If next week's numbers don't go down a noticeable amount, I think it is safe to say that the current viewing level is the show's floor, and those watching will continue watching regardless of quality or lack thereof.

 

I guess that's what striving for mediocrity looks like.  Why work harder to get an A when you can get a C with minimal effort.

[Curio]

I guess that's what striving for mediocrity looks like.  Why work harder to get an A when you can get a C with minimal effort.

 

You know what's kind of sad? Adam & Eddy worked on Lost, which was often praised for its writing in the early seasons and was nominated for several Emmy awards. You'd think Adam & Eddy would want to shoot for that same caliber of excellence on Once. But it's as if they're completely content knowing their show is just fairy tale soap opera garbage and they don't care how ridiculous the plot lines get or how little sense things make because they get to write cheesy lines with magical settings and get away with it.

 

It's not as if it'd be all that far-fetched for an actor from this show to get nominated for an Emmy award, either. Many of Lost's actors were nominated even though it was a fantasy-ish show, and even an actress from the terrible Revenge has been nominated. So, why aren't these writers shooting for Emmy gold here?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Curio

[jjjmoss]

No, I bet next season will go down again. Once a show starts slipping, usually the slippage continues each year. 'Less they can sponge off another billion-dollar movie again, I suppose.

 

I included Secrets & Lies just for comparison. Once lost quite a few viewers over the course of the ep, but the 18-49 demo stayed the same -- which is what the network cares about.

I'm sure the demo went down too. I mean, there's a 4.4% difference between 5.24 and 5.01 million, and a 1.7 rating could be anywhere from 1.74 to 1.65 (a 5.2% difference if the halves were exactly those).

Edited April 27, 2015 by jjjmoss

[KingOfHearts]

 

You know what's kind of sad? Adam & Eddy worked on Lost, which was often praised for its writing in the early seasons and was nominated for several Emmy awards. You'd think Adam & Eddy would want to shoot for that same caliber of excellence on Once.

Their episodes on Lost were not that great, to be honest. They tended to write the weaker ones. (Fire + Water, Dave, What Kate Does, for example.)

 

 

If next week's numbers don't go down a noticeable amount, I think it is safe to say that the current viewing level is the show's floor, and those watching will continue watching regardless of quality or lack thereof.

I agree with this. My addiction to this show is really the only reason I'm still watching. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[stealinghome]

On the flip side, to be hopeful: S4 has actually suffered the exact same ratings drop that S2 did. S2 premiered to a 3.9 and dropped to a 2.0 at its lowest--a 1.9 drop over the course of the season. S4 premiered to a 3.5 and dropped to a 1.6 at its lowest--an identical 1.9 drop.

 

Now, it's clear that the ratings absolutely plummeting in S2 led to some significant course-correction for at least 3A--whether because Adam and Eddie had to swallow their pride and acknowledge the numbers on their own, or whether because they were forced to do so by higher-ups at ABC. I can only hope that S4 dropping as much as S2--and on the heels of the incredibly stable S3, no less--prompts the same self-reflection from A&E and/or the same amount of  network oversight. (Ie, I can only hope that A&E don't buy into their own hype now more than they did in S2, and/or that ABC is as motivated to course-correct the show for S5 as it was for S3. Unfortunately, I'm not sure either is true.)

 

So, why aren't these writers shooting for Emmy gold here?

The sad thing is, I think they think they are. Half of the show's problem is that the writers think they're writing epic Shakespearean drama when what they're really writing is drivel.

[Serena]

I have to believe that not even A&E are delusional enough to think "I impregnated my girlfriend's half-sister masquerating as my dead wife" is an Emmy caliber storyline.

[mjgchick]

These ratings are more garbage than the actual storylines.

[sharky]

I think that the person who looks after Once is incompetent.  He's also the same guy who looks after General Hospital and God knows I quit that show a while ago because I couldn't take it anymore.  Incidentally, it's the other show who had a grown man be raped by a woman and the rape victim's wife accused him of cheating on her.  So yeah...

If these ratings keep doing what they're doing, I can't see him looking after Once for much longer.

 

And because they set up these half seasons, I actually think it is possible to course correct halfway through the season. You have to do it early of course, but if the ratings for the few three or four episodes are bad, I can see them scrapping large chunks of 5B. In this season, sure, they couldn't scrap the stupid author storyline, but maybe they could've cut down the number of dark queens or something. Whatever it is, after the huge dive the season took in the middle of the Frozen arc, there has to be someone over at ABC looking at this and thinking "We need to change something."

 

As for Emmys, the writers are getting a whole lot of nothing. I can't even see them getting WGA writing nominations. But the Emmy acting process could be a bit more fruitful when you consider the weird nomination process that only allows an actor to submit one episode. I could totally see Colin getting a nod for his Gold-as-Hook turn. Damn, that was good.

Edited April 27, 2015 by sharky

[HoodlumSheep]

A 1.7 huh. At least the ratings didn't drop anymore. But a 5.24 to a 5.01 drop for viewership numbers in the second half of an episode? Ick. Isn't that what Wonderland debuted to?

[Souris]

Variety's take:

 

According to preliminary national estimates from Nielsen, ABC’s winning night opened with “America’s Funniest Home Videos” (1.5 rating/5 share in adults 18-49, 6.1 million viewers overall) and “Once Upon a Time” (1.7/5 in 18-49, 5.1 million viewers overall), with the former up a bit and the latter steady vs. last week.

The Alphabet standout on the night, though, was “Secrets & Lies” (1.7/5 in 18-49, 5.7 million viewers overall), which was up 0.2 to a series high and matched its “Once” lead-in; the 1.7 is also better than all but the fall’s first two weeks of “Resurrection” in the time period. Though ABC has made it clear in promos that the season-long “Secrets” mystery will be solved next week, it’s also clear that ABC will want to find a way to extend the series, which stars Ryan Phillippe and Juliette Lewis, into next season. Closing out the night for ABC, “Revenge” (1.0/3 in 18-49, 4.5 million viewers overall) held steady and was able to beat out its drama rivals on both CBS and NBC in 18-49.

[HoodlumSheep]

^ they somehow manage to make it sound so (semi)positive-ish. All I can do is look at those numbers and pray that they don't sink any lower, and that the final 2/3 episodes manage to help rescue 4b a bit like the 3b finale did.

[Emma]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/04/27/the-big-bang-theory-leads-adults-18-49-viewership-gains-the-following-tops-percentage-growth-in-live-7-ratings-for-week-29-ending-april-12/394614/

DVR numbers for a couple episodes back.

[Curio]

ABC’s winning night opened with “America’s Funniest Home Videos” (1.5 rating/5 share in adults 18-49, 6.1 million viewers overall) and “Once Upon a Time” (1.7/5 in 18-49, 5.1 million viewers overall), with the former up a bit and the latter steady vs. last week. The Alphabet standout on the night, though, was “Secrets & Lies” (1.7/5 in 18-49, 5.7 million viewers overall), which was up 0.2 to a series high and matched its “Once” lead-in

 

Ouch. The 8/7 pm timeslot is usually supposed to be the strongest show of the bunch, but both its lead-in and the follow-up show had better ratings. That's bad. I know the more valuable number to look at here is the rating share, but the actual millions of viewers tuning in is a pretty strong indicator of what the general audience thinks of the current story line. The fact that America's Funniest Home Videos—a freaking 25-year-old 7/6 pm slot show that essentially just plays YouTube clips for an hour—has more viewers than Once is terrible.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Curio

[stealinghome]

Yes--let me preface this by saying that we all know demo numbers matter way more than anything else, so it's not like ABC is going to clutch its pearls over this. BUT I do find it concerning that of the 3 shows, OUAT had the lowest viewer numbers, because it kind of implies that some people who wanted to watch both AFHV and S&L actively turned OUAT off in the in-between hour instead of watching just because it's easier. Not a good sign.

[KingOfHearts]

Once's focus on new and secondary characters is very counter-productive to gaining viewership. People want to see the main cast and how they're doing in Storybrooke. I really don't think they could care less about Lily or the Author or the Queens of Darkness. One of Once's strong points is character loyalty, which many have gotten themselves invested in. It's easy to feel cheated when you get zero payoff and your favorites are utterly sidelined or get the stupidest plots ever concocted. The sheer ridiculous is not the fun, zany, tongue-in-cheek craziness we've all become accustomed to.

 

The plot holes are beginning to catch up with A&E - even the casuals are beginning to question the inconsistencies. I do hope someone steps in and brings it back down to earth as 3A did. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

People want to see the main cast and how they're doing in Storybrooke. I really don't think they could care less about Lily or the Author or the Queens of Darkness.

 

That's the thing.  A casual viewer might tune in, see Lily this week, or the Author/Young Cruella last week, and go, who the hell are those people, and they'll change the channel to something else.  At least when the Queens of Darkness are in their Disney costumes, that might get viewers to stay for slightly longer.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Camera One

[Kaoteek]

Once's focus on new and secondary characters is very counter-productive to gaining viewership. People want to see the main cast and how they're doing in Storybrooke. I really don't think they could care less about Lily or the Author or the Queens of Darkness. One of Once's strong points is character loyalty, which many have gotten themselves invested in. It's easy to feel cheated when you get zero payoff and your favorites are utterly sidelined or get the stupidest plots ever concocted.

 

But most people invested in a character or a 'ship are still watching (whether hope-watching or hate-watching), and will probably do so until the show ends, or the character/ship dies. So catering to them won't do a thing to bring in new viewers. Worst, catering to established characters might turn away casuals, if they can't stand the regular characters anymore, or feel they haven't watched enough of the show to understand how regular A or regular B is where he's at right now.

 

Early on, when OUAT started, casuals didn't tune in to see "their favorites", they tuned in for the fresh spin that writers were putting on old fairytales & characters, whether they were the Charmings, or other characters like Cinderella. The OUAT world felt huge, with tons of possible interactions & new characters. If anything, if all the casuals I know are to be believed, it's the pandering to certain ships & the overexposure of Emma/Snow/Charming/Rumple that led to their departure, and to some audience erosion.

 

Heck, the Frozen storyline managed to get some of my casual friends back in (fresh characters & storylines ! Recognizable franchise !) before chasing them off by having everything, once again, revolve around Emma, her past, and so on.

 

That said, whether the writers decide to go with new characters (I liked the self-contained Cruella story, for instance, despite some annoying tropes) or to milk the "core" characters til they're the unescapable center of everything OUAT, it all comes down to the writing... and that's the weakest point of OUAT.

[FabulousTater]

If anything, if all the casuals I know are to be believed, it's the pandering to certain ships & the overexposure of Emma/Snow/Charming/Rumple that led to their departure, and to some audience erosion.

 

Heck, the Frozen storyline managed to get some of my casual friends back in (fresh characters & storylines ! Recognizable franchise !) before chasing them off by having everything, once again, revolve around Emma, her past, and so on.

You may feel that way, but the ratings trend doesn't support your conclusion that most viewers left because there's too much Emma and the Charmings.

 

First off, 4A was focused on Emma and her relationships (and also on the Frozen characters and Ingrid) and 4A did rather well in the ratings until 4x09 ("Fall") when the ratings started to really flounder. I argue it wasn't until the show stopped delivering on setups that it had built up leading into 4x08 that people started leaving. Prior to that (from 4x01 to 4x08) the show was doing well in the ratings and viewership numbers and those early episodes focused on Emma, her past, her relationship with Hook, and her connection with her family. So the argument that people left because of too much Emma isn't supported by the ratings and viewership numbers at all.

 

Now in 4B, the focus has been heavily placed on The Queens of Darkness, Regina, and some Snowing. The Queens of Darkness have each had a centric (Ursula, Cruella, Maleficent (with a strong dose of Regina in Mal's case) ) and so has Robin Hood.  All non regulars have been give centrics already in 4B and in 5 out of the 7 episodes that aired prior to Emma's centric now in "Lily", the focus of the episode was on those secondary/guest characters, and yet the ratings dropped significantly and stayed down. In fact, Emma didn't get a lot of airtime until the most recent episode that just aired yesterday, "Lily", and prior to that her scenes amounted to a grand total of about 10 - 15 minutes in the previous 6 episodes. So Emma's been in about 10 -15 minutes out of a total of roughly 252 minutes of airime. Oh, ya, Emma's hogging soooo much of the show time now. </sarcasm> Also, it's worth noting that the lowest rated episode so far (1.6 demo and avg. 5.17 mil viewers) "Heart of Gold" was glaringly devoid of Emma, The Charmings and Regina -- who are all core characters -- and yet the episode was a ratings bust (and also hitting the lowest viewership numbers for this show with 4.96 million viewers in the second half hour of the episode.)

 

The ratings trend and viewer numbers don't support the argument that people who were watching the show left in droves in 4B because there weren't enough random characters popping in like a fairytale variety show. Again, you may feel that the show doesn't have enough random characters and focuses too much on it's core character, but that's not something that seems to have affected the larger viewing audience. Actually, the data we have better supports the argument that lack of focus on core characters**, lack of pay-off on the story setups, and lack of emotional pay-off to the core characters' stories is what's driving viewers away.

 

(** Lack of focus on the core characters is actually something that so many viewers complained of and loudly enough that the writers actually directly responded to it going from s2 to s3, and made a point of saying in interviews that in response to viewers ciriticisms they were going to be refocusing on the core characters. That's why 3A was spent entirely focused on the core characters (the show regulars) trapped together in Neverland)

Edited April 28, 2015 by FabulousTater

[Rumsy4]

I do think the writers have scraped the bottom of the barrel, broken through, and dug a hole in the ground when it comes to Snowing and Evil Queen flashbacks. However, when it comes to Emma, as the main character, she has been underused. Running around town chasing the random villain or monster of the week is not compelling to watch week after week. If they cut down the number of plots and guest characters, and gave more meaningful screentime to the regulars, the show wouldn't be losing so many viewers in a season.

[Mathius]

(** Lack of focus on the core characters is actually something that so many viewers complained of and loudly enough that the writers actually directly responded to it going from s2 to s3, and made a point of saying in interviews that in response to viewers ciriticisms they were going to be refocusing on the core characters. That's why 3A was spent entirely focused on the core characters (the show regulars) trapped together in Neverland)

And they did it successfully then. Compare to now, where their claims of core character focus in 4B has been one of the most laughable promises they have ever made.

[stealinghome]

I think one of the questions here is how many casual viewers are truly left for this show, though? To me, the ratings kind of indicate that the only people who are still hanging on are the diehards, the people who are so deeply invested they'll pretty much never give the show up. THAT audience, imo, needs meaningful character interaction to stay interested. I don't think OUAT has many casuals left at all--and if they do, obviously what the show has been doing is working for those people, hence the not leaving.

With that said, I DO agree that the show has become to claustrophobic and makes everything too Central Character-focused--Maleficent is a great example, there's no need to retcon some bs history with Snowing in--but I actually see that as a problem more for the villains than the heroes. The Charmings are given very few meaningful fairytale connections; the one that makes me roll my eyes at this point is Rumpel, because he literally seems to know everyone everywhere everywhen.

[Mathius]

Exactly. It's the strange dicthonomy where there's not enough core character focus compared to all these new characters, yet at the same time there's TOO much of a focus on the core characters. The core characters aren't given real attention or development compared to the new characters, yet the attention and development of the new characters always seems to revolve around the core characters in some way or other, to the point where it gets ridiculous.

the one that makes me roll my eyes at this point is Rumpel, because he literally seems to know everyone everywhere everywhen.

Heh, I love how Isaac basically shares this frustration of Rumple popping up everywhere in stories ("You are quite possibly the biggest pain in the ass I've ever had the displeasure to write about!")

[BoPeeps]

(just one opinion);

 

The inclusion of random new (or re-newed) characters isn't so much the problem as the loss of cohesive story telling with whoever shows up on the screen AND the disappearance of charming and fun everyday MAGIC and wit.

 

They have seemed in such a hurry to grab every un-used fairy tale (or Disney character) and incorporate them into what they (wrongly) see as an interesting tale~ that they lose complete sight of maintaining consistency in the characters and story they have already told. Those remaining characters are ALL suffering because of the obsessive need to include too many people, too many stories. They lost their characters' focus, and are losing their audience.

 

Being highly Disneyfied is not all that positive. They established a somewhat adult audience that appreciated wit and snark and clever twerking of all fairy tales without dripping gore and violence, which was a masterful feat, Then they abandoned them for intrusive Disney cutesiness that appeals to a much younger age. As much as I enjoyed the Frozen arc, it was the beginning of Disney overkill and the end of adult-appreciated  *originality*.

 

The blend of those two factions is killing this show.

Toss in the need for soap opera tawdy-sexual-situations mediocrity and it is spelling disaster. 

[sharky]

The inclusion of random new (or re-newed) characters isn't so much the problem as the loss of cohesive story telling with whoever shows up on the screen AND the disappearance of charming and fun everyday MAGIC and wit.

And I think this is played out in the ratings. Remember how big the numbers were for Frozen when it debuted. HUGE! And yet they've lost so many viewers between then and now. The ratings sustained a bit with the beginning of Frozen -- we had Elsa come to this world and what was she up to? And how did she interact with everyone? But then the Snow Queen shows up and things start to fall apart a bit. And then she dies and the ratings go down again.

 

Then you have these three Queens of Darkness -- again, there could have been a big jump in ratings if they had just focused on one and then been done with it. Maleficent tied into Disney -- and I didn't mind that considering the older slant these live-action Disney movies are taking. It made big money for the studio. But then you add in two more queens and this weird Author thing that I still don't fully understand and all these characters running around. I wanted a fire-breathing dragon with magic.

 

And that brings me back to your original quote. Magic! It's great when it works and makes us wonder, but there hasn't been much of that this past season, has there? A show about magic without magic is like a show about dinosaurs without dinosaurs. I liked Terra Nova, but one of the reasons I first tuned in was because I thought it sounded like a cool show. People go to the past and live among dinosaurs! And then there are no dinosaurs.