Ratings & Scheduling: That's what more and more of you missed on Glee

[CleoCaesar]

Is it wrong of me that I kind of want a good chunk of episodes? It's fun goofing on this show and the schadenfreude I feel as RIB's once-precious baby decays at a humiliating pace is also quite fun. Season 6 will be a disaster but by God it will be entertaining to watch it fester.

[Florinaldo]

I am no voice expert but I really  do wonder how long Darren could do a musical.  From what I read his voice was faultering after 3 weeks on Bway and after his tour.

Having actually heard him during his last performance on Broadway, I did not notice any particular strain in his voice; on the contrary, he sounded more assured than on the few YouTube clips from previous weeks. Then again, I had just heard old Domingo at the Met the same weekend, so perhaps I was in a forgiving mood.

 

Can Ausiello be trusted as a lone source for the number of episodes, since I haven't seen any other confirmation for such a specific number of episodes and I don't recall him being favoured with many exclusive Glee leaks in the past? I would not be surprised however if the network and the production had pretty much come to an agreement even before Reilly floated the prospect of a shorter season and will just be releasing details bit by bit. If the reduced season is indeed their ultimate option, a range of 13 to 15 episodes is not a bad one. On the one hand it would force the writers into what would be a challenging situation for them, i.e. concentrating their attention and focusing their storytelling attention because they won't have the safety margin of many further episodes to try and get back on track as in the past. It's also a good range to put a positive spin on this resolution because it would be a little over half the number of episodes initially planned and could then be spinned as more than what a straight half-season would have been.

 

One of the side benefits of the show's return being postponed to 2015 is the prospect of getting a few extra months of watching people all over the Web bemoaning reflex-like how bad the show has become and wringing their hands at how much of a mess RIB have made of things. And then seeing these very same people tune in compulsively once the show makes it back to air. Ah, fandom...

Edited May 23, 2014 by Florinaldo

[bravelittletoaster]

LOL, Glee wishes people were tuning in compulsively.  Or in any way.  I've never seen shittier ratings on a non-cancelled show.

[caracas1914]

LOL, Glee wishes people were tuning in compulsively.  Or in any way.  I've never seen shittier ratings on a non-cancelled show.

 

Ain't that the truth.  A .6 season finale demo is I think unprecedented for a renewed show on a major network.

 

Hell, most of the FOX show cancelled this season had better ratings than Glee on the Sunday through Thursday schedule.

 

Ryan will try to spin the shortened season as "planned" I'm sure while FOX is just trying to cover their ass over the complete free fall of Glee's demos.

[caracas1914]

The ones seeing the show are the last ones standing, that includes me.

There is also the reflex like reaction of rubbernecking at a 20 car pileup, highly entertaining.

[Cranberry]

LOL, Glee wishes people were tuning in compulsively.  Or in any way.  I've never seen shittier ratings on a non-cancelled show.

 

Yep. I technically still watch, but I'm eight episodes behind at this point and will likely catch up over the summer when I have hardly anything else to watch... hardly compulsive. 

[heyerchick]

TV Media Insights: Traditional Season Full Network Series Ranker

 

The broadcast networks are preaching 52-week seasons, with more original programming this summer (scripted and non-scripted) than ever before. But the crowing is loud, and it is plenty, based on the 2013-14 traditional (September to May) TV season, which officially ended on Wednesday, May 21.

 

The ranking is arranged in order of total viewers and includes the adult 18-49 rating, share and rank; and the percent change from the comparable year-ago period in both categories.

 

107: Glee (FOX)

VIEWERS (mil): 4.567
ADULTS 18-49 rating: 1.8
ADULTS 18-49 share: 5
ADULTS 18-49 rank: (75)
% change from 2012-13 viewers: -42.9%
% change from 2012-13 A18-49: -43.8%

 

[Anna Yolei]

42.9...... holy shitsnacks. I image it would've been lower without the Finn tribute.

[jjjmoss]

Yes, since that episode did about 2.5x better than the average this year, the show would be down 49% in 18-49, and 48% in total viewers. So just next to half.

[spiritof76]

Does anyone think that Glee's fate scheduling wise might be affected now that Kevin Reilly from Fox has announced he is leaving? Glee was kind of his baby and I'm guessing he was the one that agreed to the 2 season renewal. Will there still be anyone at Fox to go to bat for Glee? It isn't unheard of for renewal decisions to be reversed. I was shocked to see that the Arsenio Hall show was just cancelled after they initially made a big show of saying it was renewed for Season 2. 

 

I'm guessing Glee will still get it's half season wrap up, but I have to say that seeing that Reilly was leaving did make me wonder.

[Hana Chan]

I think that with Reilly leaving FOX that all bets are off as far as how many episodes Glee might have ordered for it's final season. It's been widely speculated that the two year renewal agreement in the face of sliding rating (along with the creative conflict between the network and Ryan Murphy over the direction of the show) are factors involved in Reilly's firing. But one underperforming show isn't enough to out a network head, but the problems with Glee were indicative of the wide range of problems that FOX is facing. Glee was one of FOX's two most high profile shows (with American Idol being the other) and both have performed badly. The overall direction of the network is on a downward slide.

 

Realistically, when you look at the numbers as a whole, there is no justification for Glee being in the 2014-15 lineup at all, even as a midseason replacement. But just canceling the show outright after the promise of a renewal can alienate Ryan Murphy (who still has some clout, especially after the success of Normal Heart). You don't want to burn bridges completely so allowing a limited number of episodes to allow the Glee show runners to save face isn't going to damage FOX anymore than it already has and can keep everyone on speaking terms. I expect no more than 13 episodes (and possibly less), Glee being shown in a bad spot where it won't hurt the rest of the primetime lineup (Friday nights are not outside the realm of possibility) and to have its production budget deeply slashed. At this point, any new episodes to be aired are a gift and the Glee show runners are hardly negotiating from a position of strength.

[tom87]

 Fox has a deal with Brad too.    So I think with a limted amount of episodes and some big budget cuts they will allow glee have a real ending.

Edited June 1, 2014 by tom87

[spiritof76]

 

Realistically, when you look at the numbers as a whole, there is no justification for Glee being in the 2014-15 lineup at all, even as a midseason replacement. But just canceling the show outright after the promise of a renewal can alienate Ryan Murphy (who still has some clout, especially after the success of Normal Heart). You don't want to burn bridges completely so allowing a limited number of episodes to allow the Glee show runners to save face isn't going to damage FOX anymore than it already has and can keep everyone on speaking terms. I expect no more than 13 episodes (and possibly less), Glee being shown in a bad spot where it won't hurt the rest of the primetime lineup (Friday nights are not outside the realm of possibility) and to have its production budget deeply slashed. At this point, any new episodes to be aired are a gift and the Glee show runners are hardly negotiating from a position of strength.

This is what I am thinking. Things are already going so poorly for Fox that it won't make things any worse for them by letting Glee finish up its run. I could see even 6 episodes as opposed to 13 and almost certainly on Friday nights. Basically they will let them save face based on the fact that this show did make a lot of money for them at one point and gave them quite a bit of critical acclaim (at one point). Almost like an act of mercy. But certainly with Reilly out things are more uncertain than ever.

[Hana Chan]

I have to ask if Glee coming back at all was seriously discussed given the nature of the season 5 finale, because it certainly could be framed as a close out for the series. Everyone is moving on with their careers, the last endgame relationship apparently now on a more even keel and no cliffhangers or big question marks. If Glee didn't come back, the episode would have served well enough as a series finale.

 

I think that because we haven't gotten any concrete information as to when we can expect new episodes to air and how many episodes FOX will be ordering (along with when filming is set to begin) that negotiations are still ongoing. The longer the delay without any real news goes, I think means the fewer new episodes that we can expect and productions might be sent back as far as October (speculation on my part, but going by the fact that they've got to start lining up crew shortly in order to start production in late summer as usual). Whatever agreement that Reilly apparently had with RIB is probably toast and I wouldn't blame FOX for not wanting to give Glee a new lease on life at this stage.

 

At this point, anything can happen. We could get a full half season, a 2 hour "where are they now?" movie (showing everyone in their careers and ending with the *gags* Klaine wedding), or just a few eps airing during the dead zone.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Hana Chan

[caracas1914]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/kevin-reillys-11-questionable-choices-707942

"The musical received a rare two-season renewal during its fourth run. At the time, the series was down only slightly year-over-year as the Ryan Murphy dramedy started to shift its focus between its Ohio high school setting and New York, a daunting split-location challenge that ultimately resulted in a complete shift in season five to New York. Following the death of star Cory Monteith, season five was trimmed and Glee's ratings plummeted to multiple series lows in the key adults 18-49 demographic. The show is the lowest-rated broadcast series returning to the schedule in 2014-15, and may see its 22-episode season reduced after being held for a midseason bow. "

[Hana Chan]

Pretty much everyone outside of FOX recognizes what a bone-headed idea it was to give Glee a 2 year renewal agreement considerng that in season four ratings were on a steady downward slide. It would be one thing if Glee were still one of FOX's top rated programs, but ratings were softening and the show had lost a lot of its critical cashe with the focus on Blam, Bram and the noobs. I don't think anyone expected the bottom to completely fall out, but after Moving Out aired, Glee lost half of its remaining audience and it was all downhill from there.

 

I think that whatever chance Glee had of maintaining it's audience base was crushed with the extended school year at McKinley which meant being forcefed more of the failing concept. At least we didn't have additional McKinley-only episodes, but having to wait until New New York to finally ditch McKinley was just too little too late and burned up the last of the goodwill that the audience had left. And Reilly bears a huge amount of responsibility for not forcing the shift in focus to NY sooner. We went into season 5 with the idea that sooner rather than later the focus would shift to NY, but they waited until more than half the season was past do to so and by then it was too late to save their audience share.I don't know what kind of justification will be used for sell more than a few cursory episodes filmed on a shoestring budget at this stage, but to see a show go from not just having fantastic ratings, but enormous critical appeal and regularly nominated for prestigious awards to being listed as a primary reason for a high level network executive being shitcanned? That's just sad.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Hana Chan

[camussie]

I don't think anyone expected the bottom to completely fall out, but after Moving Out aired, Glee lost half of its remaining audience and it was all downhill from there.

 

 

This is my sticking point.  They should have been expecting the bottom to fall out on the ratings if they kept trying to do the split narrative.  I said repeatedly it was only a matter of time before the audience got fed up with it and almost completely bailed.  Yet, instead of taking note of some very clear signs that the split narrative was going to bring down the show, RM and team doubled down on it by extending the school year and Fox/Kevin Reilly indulged that stupidity by giving them a two year renewal.  I think Cory's passing hastened that bottom falling out but I still contend it was only a matter of time before it happened, Finn or no Finn. Of course all involved have attributed Glee's troubles this year to Cory's passing but to me that is just scapegoating their failures.  Unfortunately many in the media have let them get away with it.  

 

As far as when they decided to extend the school year so long into season 5, I still think that decision and the decision to let MM out of his contract were related.  I think RM and team probably wanted more time to make the newbies happen and when they decided to let MM walk it was the perfect opportunity to say MM is leaving after the 100 so we should extend the school year to his last episode and make that episode a tribute to Will (which I actually agree with them that a tribute to Will was the most organic way to celebrate the 100)

 

Then Cory passed and their deal with Matt was modified as it seems, at first, they were going to try and keep McKinley with Will staying on.

 

Then Fox got the ratings to 502 (the episode I still think was the real turning point as the demos went from 2.0 to 1.5, a 25% drop) and said nope we can't afford two narratives.  They were filming "The End of Twerk" when 502 aired and that episode still featured quite a bit of the sophomores as did "Movin' Out" (which would have been in pre-production) but by "Puppet Master" the sophomores were pretty much background players at McKinley.  Still I think Fox/Reilly allowed RM and team to stick to the original timeline of the 100 being the end of the school year/a Will tribute.  Only instead of McKinley sticking around with Finn supporting the newbies they decided to use that episode to just shut it down.  

 

The unanswered question, for me, will always be if Finn were still around how long would it take for the ratings to bottom out? if they kept McKinley I think they would have bottomed out to 1.0/1.1 by year's end, which was already a level Fox seemed to think was unacceptable for two narratives.  Sure that isn't a 0.6 like the finale but they still would have been awful.

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

Yup. Here's the thing; they literally wrote off the entire Season 5 with the extension of the McKinley school year. Something not working for you? No problem, you simply stretch it out more.

Even before the switch to NY the ratings had plummeted to .9 and , yes, Hana Chan, totally agree with you. I'm sorry but 7 episodes at the end of a season is beyond too little too late; but FOX was staggeringly incompetent in allowing that to continue as long as they did.

Whatever, the damage is done and now it's obvious FOX is trying to minimize the damage of its 2 year renewal.

With Reilly ousted, I don't think FOX cares at all anymore.

Edited June 2, 2014 by caracas1914

[dizzyizzy01]

The cast has been told that production starts up again in mid-July, which is a lot sooner than anyone thought given the episodes won't start airing again until 2015.  I definitely think it'll be a much shortened season though.

[camussie]

To me it will also always go back to they tried to be all things to all people.  They tried to be both Friday Night Lights (keeping the narrative centered on the town) and 90210 (following the graduates) and it backfired.  The reality is RM and team, with Fox's blessing, chose which direction the show would go in the second they de-emphasized Will's role starting in season 2.  From that point forward the obvious path was the 90210 route yet come season 4 they balked and tried to do "split the baby."

 

The really stupid part of that is, if they really felt like the choir room was where the narrative should always remain, they had an actor in MM who could have carried it off.  As the only true triple threat on the cast he was more than equipped to be Glee's version of Coach Taylor.  Emma wasn't quite Tami Taylor levels of awesome (really very few female characters on TV are) but she was solid enough to make it work.  

 

What happened is that RM and team, as well as Fox, got caught up in the hype about the "kids," especially after the first tour, so they de-emphasized Will to riding the blackboard while the kids roles continued to grow, especially with Kurt essentially becoming a co-lead with Finn/Rachel in season 2 and Santana's emergence in season 3.   I can even understand why TPTB made that choice but once they made that choice they needed to follow through to its natural conclusion - leaving McKinley after the leads graduated.  Come season 4 they balked at that and tried to be all things to all people and it just ended up bringing down the show.  

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

"especially with Kurt essentially becoming a co-lead with Finn/Rachel in season 2 and Santana's emergence in season 3."

So it even made less sense when they sidelined both of them in Season 4.

[dizzyizzy01]

I actually think the crux of the issue is that no one in that writer's room was capable of plotting things out long-term.  They all seemed to have ADD when it came to plot-points, so I wonder if they even really discussed coming up with the "Friday Night Lights" strategy vs. the "90210" strategy.  Everything they did seemed to be throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.  The writers barely remember/care what happens from episode to episodes let along season long vs. series long arcs.  I do agree that Ryan Murphy did have some misguided belief that he could make the newbies breakout stars like he did with the original cast, but as we've seen there was a significant miscalculation on his part there.  I just don't think the writers room had enough depth in it to really be thinking about long-term story arcs, settings, etc.

 

It was clear the original concept of the show had Lea/Cory/Matt as leads.  I don't know what they were planning to do with Lea/Cory upon graduation and how they were going to continue to integrate Lea/Cory with MM/Lima.  The lessened focus on Will was quite strange in season 2/3, and they missed out on a lot of opportunities there with the Rachel/Will relationship and to a lesser extent Finn/Will relationship as well.

[camussie]

Oh I agree.  They didn't really think about whether they were going to be 90210 or FNL.  My point is that by de-emphasizing Will, starting in season 2 and really in season 3, or probably more accurately featuring the"kids" more than ever, due in large part to the success of the tour, and therefore not having much room for Will's story, they determined the direction the show should have gone in whether they consciously planned for it or not.  It just took them to around when 5.02 aired to horrible ratings to finally catch up with what was obvious to many of us starting back in season 2 - that Glee was a high school show in the model of 90210, where the kids were the most important part, not the location, and therefore the narrative should follow them.  But, by then, it was too little too late and the audience was just done.  

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[tom87]

 

 

It was clear the original concept of the show had Lea/Cory/Matt as leads.  I don't know what they were planning to do with Lea/Cory upon graduation and how they were going to continue to integrate Lea/Cory with MM/Lima.  The lessened focus on Will was quite strange in season 2/3, and they missed out on a lot of opportunities there with the Rachel/Will relationship and to a lesser extent Finn/Will relationship as well.

There are so many things glee should have done differently from the start .  Number 1 making the original 5 freshman and graduating out some of the Popular kids that first season.   Not focsuing on endgames.  Sticking to thier format of arcs for the lead/main characters and focus episodes for the supporting characters.   Stop spreading themselves so thin with auxlary characters like Dave and Becky getting stoylines.

 

I don't know what they were planning to do with Lea/Cory upon graduation

 

By mid season 2 it was to spin them off but of couse Ryan talked to soon and it spooked Fox.

Edited June 2, 2014 by tom87

[camussie]

While the spin-off probably would have been a better show than the split narrative, I think having both it and original recipe Glee would have meant diluted ratings for both.   Since they had relegated Will to supporting status, what needed to happen was them simply cutting the chord with McKinley after season  3 (assuming no changes to the ages of the kids).  Moving the kid leads (Finn, Rachel, Kurt, and Santana) to New York along with a few utility supporting players (Artie, Mercedes, and Blaine if we must) and doing that show.  

 

As for the original ages I agree Quinn, Puck, Mike should have all been juniors to the the original 5 + Britney's Freshman and Santana & Finn's, sophomores.  That way they would have graduated at the end of season 2.  Finn/Santana at the end of season 3 (where one or both could have gone to community college) and Rachel, Artie, Mercedes, and Kurt at the end of season 4.  Then season 5 could have followed the group I described above to NYC.  

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[CleoCaesar]

they had an actor in MM who could have carried it off.  As the only true triple threat on the cast he was more than equipped to be Glee's version of Coach Taylor.

 

To me Will was always corny, creepy, and badly acted, and I never gave two shits about his life. MM is a terrible actor IMO - whenever his name comes up I immediately hear his robotic delivery of lines such as "Guys! That's not what glee club is all about!". I dunno, I think the show focused way too much on Will and Sue, and that didn't help the ratings. To me the heart of the show is Rachel, Finn, Kurt, Mercedes, Puck, Quinn, Tina, Artie, and Santana - not the teachers and coaches and relatives. Glee started going off the rails when it a) became an Afterschool Special aimed at teaching kids lessons, and b) gave inordinate amounts of attention to what felt like dozens of side characters.

Edited June 2, 2014 by CleoCaesar

[jjjmoss]

ITA that Matthew Morrison's acting skills are subpar. 

 

FWIW the L+7 #s put the finale with a 100% increase...but going from a 0.6 to a 1.2 is still not the kind of #s a network wants. Even underdog Hannibal did better, and it's still below at least one CW show that week.

Edited June 2, 2014 by jjjmoss

[cycworker]

Definitely the Afterschool Special qualities they added to the show were a big problem. What made the first season of Glee good was that the humour was dark, satirical, and even, at it's best, subversive. The show totally lost its edge. Part of that could have been Fox telling them to tone it down, in an effort to make the show appeal to a broader/even younger audience. By season 3, there were kids I know who were getting permission to watch that NEVER would've been allowed to watch S1.

 

 

I actually think the crux of the issue is that no one in that writer's room was capable of plotting things out long-term.

Understatement of the year! Ryan Murphy wouldn't recognize a throughline if he tripped over it. 

[camussie]

I think MM was a good actor although I agree both his singing and dancing are better.  Even if I didn't, though, I would never say all of the kid characters you listed were the heart of the show.  For example, I would take everyone but Finn, Rachel, Kurt (starting in season 2), and Santana (starting in season 3) off that list.  The rest were supporting.  Some were used effectively in that supporting role.  Artie throughout the series and Tina in seasons 1-3.  Some were not.  For example. I thought it was dumb to keep on giving story arc to story arc to Quinn after season 1. She was not a lead and trying to make her a quasi one just ruined her characterization time & again and brought down other characters with her.  Finn in season 2 with the redux.  Puck in season 3 with the Shelby mess.  Rachel with her stupid becoming your friend is one of my greatest accomplishments.  

 

I do agree giving tertiary characters like Dave, the Warblers as a whole, and even Brittany, more involved arcs  was one of the many downfalls of this show.  

 

As for the show focusing too much on Will and Sue, Will got less focus in season 2 and much less focus in season 3.  Sue got perhaps more especially when it came to special episodes (the Superbowl episode and "Funeral," an Emmy bait episode if there ever was one) but not Will.  Ratings were at their highest the second half of season 1 - first half of season 2 and started dropping after that.  Given that Will was truly just riding the chalkboard in season 3 I don't think "Will focus" is a factor at all in declining ratings.  

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

What stories do they actually have left to tell? I suppose they can jump start Glee again at McKinley but other than that, there doesn't seem to be any journeys left for any of the characters. Rachel is a star, Klaine is getting hitched, so whatever they have left for Season 6 is trying to pigeon hole story lines for Chord and Darren as the new "leads" of Glee and Rachel's adventures in stardom. Every other character left doesn't seem to interest the show runners any more. Doubt if Artie, Mercedes, Kurt, Santana (?) and Will have much to do. Sue is a guest star regardless.

[dizzyizzy01]

Will was always kinda creepy but in a hilarious way, especially S1 Will.  And while MM was completely wasted on this show, I think he's probably one of the more overall talented in the cast.  His acting (he's probably a better dramatic actor than comedic) was good.  He's the best male singer, and the best dancer (except for Harry).  But really, there's only so much you can do when relegated to writing the lesson of the week on the white board.

[Cranberry]

I don't know if I'd blame FOX. Popular had the same issues in season two, veering wildly between subversive dark humor and after school special episodes. There was a whole story line where one of the characters (Harrison) had leukemia and shared a hospital room with a very religious roommate who annoyed Harrison at first but died just as Harrison was starting to like and understand him. That same episode had two other characters dealing with eating disorders, and all of this was handled very earnestly. The next episode dealt with alcoholic parents, and I remember a "gay-bashing and racism are bad" episode, as well. These were all so different in tone from the episodes dealing with STDs (in which the kids played STDs in a musical called "That Burning Sensation") or teen pregnancy (hijinks with "Baby, Don't Do It" dolls, including a couple of the characters hiring a nanny to babysit their dolls and finding out the nanny was a baby-shaker).

[Sara2009]

I actually think Matt is a good comedic actor when he's given funny material. He cracked me up in the Superbowl episode and especially in " Blame It On the Alcohol."

He also has some hilarious facial expressions.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Sara2009

[indeed]

The New Normal. Not FOX.

[caracas1914]

I think Glee would have survived most of it's trainwreck planning and writing but even it couldn't withstand getting rid of all it's leads and suddenly elevating Blam/Brittany and the Noobs as the leads/main narrative of the show. It's bad enough to do it for a whole season but when the signal was given out that it would continue in season 6 with the same focus it basically was RIB telling their audience "FUCK YOU, we are going to shove our new stars down your throat" and that was it.

The weird thing is it wasn't even as if RIB had a "vision". It was the same triangles and PSA's at McKinley with a 2.0 cast lineup; It's one thing if they had a long term strategy, because I also don't think they had to necesssarily cotton to every subfan group, but they wrote way too much meta to not think they were reacting to audience/fan feedback.

It was the worse possible approach, they seemed to write to annoy/taunt some of the previously most ardent fans and cater to others, and yet it wasn't as if they had an idea what direction the show was actually going.

I mean, once the last of the Seniors graduated, how in the world did they expect to continue the 80/20 split they were maintaining?

Edited June 2, 2014 by caracas1914

[camussie]

I doubt they would have kept the 80/20 split but they would have tried to at least have it 50/50 (starting in season 6) and that still wouldn't have worked because the bottom line is the split narrative was never a workable show structure

 

The reason I say it would have gone to 50/50 is that it seems like both Blaine & Sam were slated for New York and where they went is where some of the McKinley focus would have gone.  How would have tried to justify Sam being a fit for New York narrative while Finn continued to ride the whiteboard back at McKinley is one of the many questions out there.  Maybe they would have surprised me and kept Sam back in Lima.

 

The reason I say starting in season 6 is because I think the tentative plan, before Cory passed, was probably to have the 100 be Will's last episode and then do concurrent summer arcs in both Lima and NYC.  That would have let them keep Tina, Artie, and possibly both Sam & Blaine in Lima for all of season 5.  It also would have fit with a timeline of the final episode of season 5 being Rachel's FG debut.

 

They then could have used the summer hiatus to jump ahead a year to real time and do the Rachel is bored of FG arc then.  Since I am one who thinks RM and team were too lazy to change a lot of what they had roughly planned for Rachel's story I think her looking for greener pastures was always in the cards (all to get her to the point where she finds her post Broadway success hollow so she returns "home" to Lima).  It just would have made more sense after spending a year on Broadway versus after spending 6 weeks.  

Edited June 3, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

Sure they wouldn't have continued the 80/20 split but the dirty open secret was that without that uneven distribution there is no way McKinley could survive. Plus Ryan Murphy had a hard on for both Darren and Chord during the year so that they were the new leads of the show, not the Noobs and not even Rachel. It was the Blee/Blam show in addition to Noobs.

So it was fucked up no matter what they did with McKinley if wanted to continue some sort of split.

[Sara2009]

Will was always kinda creepy but in a hilarious way, especially S1 Will. And while MM was completely wasted on this show, I think he's probably one of the more overall talented in the

cast. His acting (he's probably a better dramatic

actor than comedic) was good. He's the best

male singer, and the best dancer (except for

Harry). But really, there's only so much you can

do when relegated to writing the lesson of the

week on the white board.

I kind of miss his rap numbers. They were corny, but I thought they were fun. Plus, Matt got to show off his dancing in " Bust a Move."

[Pink ranger]

I respectfully disagree than MMs acting was subpar. His blow up after finding out that his wife was faking a pregnancy is still one of the acting highlights of the series for me. He sold his comedic story lines in Ballad and Blame it on the alcohol as well. With better care he could have been a viable anchor IMO.

For Ryan's vision of a rotating cast of kids in the choir room to have worked I think that firstly he should have started graduating students earlier. I would have opened the back nine of s1 with an identification of a hand full of people who would graduate at the end of that season. Secondly I would have experimented with a college based spin off using one or two of the popular upperclass. Say just Rachel or maybe Blane who was a breakout star in s2. This is to cause a minimal risk as possible to the mother show. If successful two shows would exist in the franchise and popular older students could then have been moved from high school to college year by year.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Pink ranger

[camussie]

Which is why once Blaine/Sam left there wouldn't have been a 80/20 split, that is if McKinley remained at all which I am not convinced it would have.  I still say ratings would have dropped low enough by mid season that Fox would have mandated that RM shut down Lima.  There is a reason they only gave the newbies a 13 episode guarantee for season 5.  I think that was Fox's one hedge against keeping McKinley.

 

What I mean is, although Fox was dumb enough to let RM continue to try and sell the newbies by dragging out the school year into season 5, they also were not 100% convinced it would work so they gave the newbies only a 13 episode guarantee.  That gave Fox the room to shut down Lima without having to pay actors for episodes they wouldn't be in which proved to be useful when they did just that in season 5.  Given that those contracts were signed before Cory passed, that tells me that in someone's minds at Fox it was always a possibility to kill Lima this year, remote as RM and team may have thought it was.  

 

I would have opened the back nine of s1 with an identification of a hand full of people who would graduate at the end of that season.

 

 

I would have had them graduate at the end of season 2 since season 1 wasn't a full competition cycle season and as I said I would have had Puck, Quinn, and Mike be the ones to graduate which would have made them juniors in season 1.  

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[Sara2009]

Would a spin-off really have been successful? I know that Rachel, Kurt, Blaine, and Finn were/are arguably the most popular characters, but spin-offs rarely work. I think that the novelty around " Glee " just wore off quickly.

[camussie]

I don't think it would have been.  I think a spin off would have meant subpar ratings for both it and the original as it would have been too much "Glee."  I think the only viable solution for sustaining Glee for longer was choosing one path after season 3 (assuming the ages of everyone remained the same).  Sure Glee was bound to have falling ratings but I don't think it would have been this big of a fall is they simply chose one path after season 3. Well if they simply chose to follow the grads after season 3 since the show was not set up narratively to stay in Lima.

Edited June 2, 2014 by camussie

[SNeaker]

In order for the show to have worked longterm, the writers would have had to have been replaced by people with real talent. No strategy -- graduating off popular characters way too soon, keeping the Season 1 level of focus on the adults, not firing 1/3 of the cast and separating the rest while switching focus to Blam and the noobs -- would have saved the show in the long run. Not doing that last asstastic mistake might have slowed the bleeding a little bit, but in the end, imo, the audience would have left anyway because the show is a terrible, no-good, very bad show, and once the novelty wore off and the tone shifted nothing was going to make them stay for this level of awful, insulting writing. Rachel is still on the show, and Rachel was my girl back in the day, but her presence can't keep me watching. On the contrary, the way they have destroyed her character and utterly undermined and ruined her storyarc (from what I hear) is exactly why I refuse to watch.

Edited June 2, 2014 by SNeaker

[caracas1914]

I don't think the novelty of Glee wore off as much as the show runners never mapped out the show beyond the initial season one with any planning or character development. The problems in the writing festered and continued to exponentially increase.

Ironically the one long term vision Ryan Murphy had was that he "needed" to graduate most of the young stars by season 3 and make Darren the new and undisputed lead and we all saw how that worked out.

Edited June 2, 2014 by caracas1914

[SNeaker]

Oh, the show with good writing would have been fine once the novelty wore off. But the show had issues from the start, and it was, I believe, the novelty as well as the subversive nature of the humor that had people watching anyway despite its problems. Then the novelty wore off, and all it had was increasingly bad writing. Throw in messing around with the cast, and you have a recipe for the pathetically low ratings we have now.

[camussie]

For sure there were always issues with the writing and basic storytelling.  I think the first time that was very apparent was how the pregnancy lies were essentially gone and forgotten by the first episode of the second half of season 1.  I mean, shouldn't Will have said something to Quinn about how she was going to help his wife lie about their child?  Also shouldn't have Finn been pissed for more one episode that Quinn and Puck were completely screwing with his future while the rest of the Glee team, save Rachel, kept quiet about it.  Then there was how the whole Shelby thing was dropped for all of season 2.  The Finn/Quinn redux that made no sense.  I could go on and on.  

Edited June 3, 2014 by camussie

[caracas1914]

The irony is that increasing the number of writers in Season 3 didn't help matters any, because then it was 8 writers, as opposed to 3 or 4, with no fucking road map to where the show was going.

It was the old adage, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Glee was written by writers who apparently didn't consult or even look at the other episodes that preceded them. Every episode, even the relatively good ones, were written in a vacuum.

Edited June 2, 2014 by caracas1914

[dizzyizzy01]

Glee has never had a showrunner that had a cohesive vision.  The closest was S1, but even then there were some problems there.  They were less obvious and much more tolerable, but there was definitely problems.  

 

Adding staff writers without a strong showrunner doesn't do anything except that a greater variety of people are writing disjointed scripts.  

[heyerchick]

Glee Season 5 ratings to date
Source: TV By The Numbers http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/?s=live%2B7

L+SD = Live + Same Day
L+7 = Live + 7 Day DVR

5.01 LOVE, LOVE, LOVE
(18-49 L+SD) 2.0 (18-49 L+7) 3.2 (Rating Increase) +1.2 (% Increase) +60%

 

5.02 TINA IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS
(18-49 L+SD) 1.6 (18-49 L+7) 2.7 (Rating Increase) +1.1 (% Increase) +69%

 

5.03 THE QUARTERBACK
(18-49 L+SD) 2.9 (18-49 L+7) 4.3 (Rating Increase) +1.4 (% Increase) +48%

 

5.04 A KATY OR A GAGA
(18-49 L+SD) 1.5 (18-49 L+7) 2.6 (Rating Increase) +1.1 (% Increase) +73%

 

5.05 THE END OF TWERK
(18-49 L+SD) 1.4 (18-49 L+7) 2.3 (Rating Increase) +0.9 (% Increase) +64%

 

5.06 MOVIN' OUT
(18-49 L+SD) 1.4 (18-49 L+7) 2.3 (Rating Increase) +0.9 (% Increase) +64%

 

5.07 PUPPET MASTER
(18-49 L+SD) 0.9 (Excluded from the ratings as a 'special')

 

5.08 PREVIOUSLY UNAIRED CHRISTMAS
(18-49 L+SD) 1.1 (18-49 L+7) 2.0 (Rating Increase) +0.9 (% Increase) +82%

 

5.09 FRENEMIES
(18-49 L+SD) 1.2 (Episode did not appear in the list of top 25 progams for which data is provided)

 

5.10 TRIO
(18-49 L+SD) 1.0 (18-49 L+7) 1.7 (Rating Increase) +0.7 (% Increase) +70%

 

5.11 CITY OF ANGELS
(18-49 L+SD) 0.9 (18-49 L+7) 1.5 (Rating Increase) +0.6 (% Increase) +67%

 

5.12 100
(18-49 L+SD) 1.1 (18-49 L+7) 1.8 (Rating Increase) +0.7 (% Increase) +64%

 

5.13 NEW DIRECTIONS
(18-49 L+SD) 1.1 (18-49 L+7) 1.8 (Rating Increase) +0.7 (% Increase) +64%

 

5.14 NEW NEW YORK
(18-49 L+SD) 0.9 (18-49 L+7) 1.6 (Rating Increase) +0.7 (% Increase) +78%

 

5.15 BASH
(18-49 L+SD) 1.0 (18-49 L+7) 1.6 (Rating Increase) +0.6 (% Increase) +60%

 

5.16 TESTED
(18-49 L+SD) 1.0 (18-49 L+7) 1.6 (Rating Increase) +0.6 (% Increase) +60%

 

5.17 OPENING NIGHT
(18-49 L+SD) 0.9 (18-49 L+7) 1.5 (Rating Increase) +0.6 (% Increase) +67%

 

5.18 BACK-UP PLAN
(18-49 L+SD) 0.9 (18-49 L+7) 1.4 (Rating Increase) +0.5 (% Increase) +56%

 

5.19 OLD DOG, NEW TRICKS
(18-49 L+SD) 0.8 (18-49 L+7) 1.3 (Rating Increase) +0.5 (% Increase) +63%

 

5.20 THE UNTITLED RACHEL BERRY PROJECT
(18-49 L+SD) 0.6 (18-49 L+7) 1.2 (Rating Increase) +0.6 (% Increase) +100%

[Higgs]

I was in the audience for a performance of the revival of "South Pacific" at Lincoln Center. I know Matt Morrison. Matt Morrison is an actor of mine. Every male actor in the regular "Glee" cast is/was no Matt Morrison.

Not until pop-and-lock gains high status as a dance form may Harry Shum, Jr. be considered as good a dancer as Matt Morrison.

Rachel/Kurt at NYADA is a different genre from "Glee", and Rachel on Broadway is a different genre still. Neither a spin-off (see "Smash") nor a split narrative (see "Glee") would have been viable. Their only hope was to dump all the graduates entirely and find another Lea Michele to lead New Directions, even if it meant the terrible, soul-destructive downgrading of Darren Criss. Given the broad consensus that Rachel, whose voice is that of said Ms. Michele, was unrealistically awarded the role of Fanny because so many other real (but never named) women are better singers/actors/comediennes, it should have been an easy task to accomplish.

To complain that the character of Rachel Berry was undermined by revealing her serious flaws is akin to complaining that Tolstoy/Flaubert/Hawthorne/... had no business having Anna Karenina/Madame Bovary/Hester Prynne/... commit adultery.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Higgs