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

[Sara2009]

Harry's dancing is just as good as Matt 's IMO. He just has a different style.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Sara2009

[camussie]

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.

 

 

That is the thing.  On the show they haven't treated Rachel's actions as flawed.  She got yelled at for a hot minute about skipping out on the show to do an audition but that calling on the carpet was remedied within 5 seconds when she got called by the network offering her a development deal.  There are simply no consequences to Rachel's hubris and no struggle in her story.  That is why some of us find her story annoying and worse yet boring.

 

As far as there being others who could play Fanny, in the Glee universe Rachel was first year student at NYADA, not the seasoned Broadway performer Lea Michele is.   Someone with Lea Michele's extensive Broadway resume and talent is probably the best person to play Fanny Brice.  But  Rachel is not Lea Michele.  She is a character played by Lea Michele but the character certainly had nowhere near the professional bonafides of  Lea or of Barbra Streisand when she was cast as Fanny back in 1963  (Barbra already had one Tony nomination under he belt when that happened).  I seriously doubt that BS would have been cast as FB without that experience and yet Rachel was.  Seems to me that those who didn't think Rachel had the experience (which was the main argument against her being cast) to pull off Fanny were remembering the simple fact that Rachel and Lea are not one and the same.  

 

As far as naming names of who would have been better qualified to play Fanny, Glee is a fictional world so it wouldn't be hard to come up with a fictional character who has the talent of Rachel but more experience under her belt and therefore was a better fit for the role.  There are certainly actresses out there, other than Lea Michele, who could have pulled off the vocals.  Samantha Barks off the top of my head but there are plenty of other known and not known actresses who could have done it.  Basically, as talented as Lea Michele is, she is hardly the only one who can pull off Fanny, especially on a show where we wouldn't see the entire production.  

 

Then there is Rachel's lack of acting chops.  Yes they tried to tell me that Rachel's  version of Fanny was a revelation but from what I saw she was simply mimicking Barbra and the performance was more suited for a Las Vegas revue show than the Broadway stage.  Wouldn't be the first time "Glee" tried to tell me a performance was awesome when it wasn't

 

I will admit I thought they would have had Lea as Rachel bring a bit more uniqueness to the role, given that RM wants to mount a production with LM as the lead.  I suspect taking the time to add nuance like that went by the wayside with some of Glee's budget cuts.

Edited June 3, 2014 by camussie

[SNeaker]

Lea was made to keep trying out for Wendla how many times? And that was after years of being in shows as a child and having plenty of stage experience under her belt, and she still had to fight to keep that part. She was also turned down for Maria in "West Side Story." Lea Michele faced much more struggle in her Broadway career than Rachel Berry has. If they did make her story more like Lea's, it might actually be interesting.

[caracas1914]

I think that is the first and hopefully the last fucking time I see Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary compared to Glee.

I mean Glee and "Citizen Kane" are both on some type of film/celluloid but after that in all that is holy any other comparisons can be dropped.

Edited June 3, 2014 by caracas1914

[tom87]

Lea was made to keep trying out for Wendla how many times? And that was after years of being in shows as a child and having plenty of stage experience under her belt, and she still had to fight to keep that part. She was also turned down for Maria in "West Side Story." Lea Michele faced much more struggle in her Broadway career than Rachel Berry has. If they did make her story more like Lea's, it might actually be interesting.

yet everyone keeps saying Rachel is now Lea Michele.

 

But that is not true at all and a bit dismissive of  what  Lea has actaully done in her career and how  she has earned the roles she has gotten.

 

The only similaities is Lea and Rachel at some point  will both be on a tv show in LA.   Besides that thier backgrounds and career paths, love lifes are completely different. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by tom87

[caracas1914]

It's not that Rachel is exceptionally talented which is the problem, it's that for both drama and comedy all the tension, conflict, suspense and even interest has been removed from her storyline path to stardom. Everyone bows to her, which is so removed from most stories that are not literally caricatures or played for satire.

Her journey is played straight (most of the time), which paradoxically gives it an even more bizarre surreal quality but without the laughs or dark comedy which is the only way it might work.

Edited June 3, 2014 by caracas1914

[Hana Chan]

The mistake that Glee has made with Rachel's storyline is that they treat her the way Lea Michele today is regarded as a talent, with all of the practical professional stage experience that she has gained over a lifetime of performing on Broadway rather than the reality of Rachel's character as she exists in canon. Rachel might be exceptionally talented, but she had no real experience as a stage performer before being cast as Fanny. Per canon, she never was cast in any of the community theater parts that she had auditioned for (mentioned in season one and no indications since that she as trying to get community theater roles). Her sole experience before arriving at NYADA was ND and a single school musical. At NYADA, she did one showcase (which was a park and bark performance and not playing a role), but no school plays or musicals. Rachel's CV might be well padded, but it had no real experience that a Broadway director could look at and think "Yeah, this girl might be young but she can carry a multi-million dollar production."  And once inexplicably cast (given that the show was touching on all the logical reasons why she shouldn't be cast), Rachel had no real learning curve to struggle with. She made an absolutely seamless transition from student to professional (with the sole exception of her unprofessional behavior in running off her understudy for which she was rewarded rather than punished) and everything not just worked out for her, but turned to absolute gold.

 

Lea Michele has worked hard and dealt with a lifetime of challenges and rejection as a performer to reach the stage in her career that she has now. The idea that a tv network would want to frame a television show around someone who practically grew up on Broadway is not outlandish. That a network would want to frame a tv show around an actress playing her first role ever is. Glee has always had a certain level of actor bleed, but what they've done here is basically gift Rachel with not just Lea's talent, but the benefit of her life experience without actually letting her have those experiences. When the sole struggle that Rachel had to deal with in the FG storyline was a well-deserved chewing out from her boss for blowing off a performance to attend an audition less than a fucking month after making her debut, and not only weathers it but gets rewarded with an even bigger prize, then you know that the writers have gone full out into fantasy land without a hint of irony to show that they are aware that the whole thing is totally bullshit.

[Florinaldo]

I don't think Reilly's departure will have much of an effect on Glee; such a major career move by a top executive, with two years left in his contract from what I read (for which some form of compensation has probably been agreed to, as per usual practice), must have been known well in advance among Fox's power circle and whatever consequences it will have were already factored into the announcements the network made at the recent upfronts.

 

It would probably be best for his replacement to let the announced line-up go ahead anyway except for some cosmetic tinkering, so that they will reap the possible benefits of any successful shows and have the easy out of blaming someone else for the failures. Besides, TV shows aren't created through spontaneous generation and it takes time to order new ones to overhaul a whole schedule; September is just around the corner in terms of TV production. The one way Glee could be impacted is in the way the network will end up treating it, for example using it as a schedule-filler in case many of its new shows do not survive the first few weeks of the fall season and it finds itself with holes to fill, so that Glee might pop up in small groups of episodes over the months, on a different night for each group.

 

Regarding ratings, this article discusses briefly how shifted viewing patterns can affect a show's overall results, rather substantially in the case of Glee.

 

Ryan will try to spin the shortened season as "planned"

I think there is a misconception at work here regarding the nature of spin; spin does not need to be true, it just needs to be spun, time and again, until it becomes an aspect of what you want to be perceived as truth. And RIB would have a perfect opportunity to do it here, saving face and ignoring the dissenting voices, as spinners usually do.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Florinaldo

[Hana Chan]

Given that the shortened season, along with the midseason replacement status is coming from the network literally on the same day as the Upfronts and not long after RIB were talking about an extended season (to make up for the 2 episodes lost in season 5), it doesn't matter how Ryan Murphy and his cronies try to frame it. It's not his decision to cut the final season short and all the spin isn't going to hide that fact. The show is a three legged horse that can barely limp to the finish line - it's got dismal ratings and has lost all of it's critical prestigue. The fact that Glee is coming back at all next season when shows that have gotten better ratings didn't survive the ax is nothing more than an undeserved gift.

 

There are all kinds of reasons why Glee's ratings have softened over the years and shifting viewing patterns are certainly a part of that. Glee wouldn't be the first show that started off strong and then fizzled towards the end. But that doesn't explain how the floor completely fell out from the bottom of the ratings. That from one episode to the next (New New York to be specific) Glee lost half of what remained of its audience and not only never regained it, but continued to bleed viewers.

 

More than shifting audience tastes, Glee was hampered by two years of painfully bad management, discarding or sidelining of established cast that the audience had grown attached to and replacing them with pleasent but weak substitutes, repetative storylines, and an overall decline in show quality. The decision to stretch out the season 4 school year 2/3s into season 5 and postpone a much needed transition to the NY location was probably the final nail in Glee's coffin. By time that was done, Glee was so badly damaged that there was nothing that could save it. The problems then compounded with the lackluster Funny Girl storyline (which had all of the excitement of a wet firecracker), wasting time with Shirley McLaine and the "revoluationary" conclusion to the season which results in another split focus (since it's worked so well before).

 

So Ryan Murphy can blather all he wants about how he was on board with this decision and it's mutual and allows for a proper send off for the show and blah blah blah. No one will believe him. They won't call him out on his bullshit (because this is show business where bullshit is practically a condiment), but no one will buy it. It was Ryan who insisted on shoving Lea, Chris, Cory, Naya and Matt to the backburner in order to shove Blam, Bram and the noobs into leading roles. It was Ryan who insisted on keeping the majority of focus and screen time on McKinley even when it was becoming clear that the audience and critics were rejecting it. It was Ryan who kept insisting that it was his formula that made Glee such a success and not the characters and actors that the audience had grown to love. And after negotiating with FOX and agreeing to shift focus to NY in season five he wanted until the final 7 episodes to finally do so. So Glee going down in flames can be laid squarely in his lap.

[Anna Yolei]

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.

I may start a thread in the Misc TV thread to cover this more, but this is a problem across all the big networks these days, taking ideas that are a miniseries event at best and trying to milk it. The New Normal was one of those, and while I enjoyed it for what was, I wasn't surprise or overly saddened by its cancellation.

Bact to Glee, I can excuse them for not realizing what a phenomenon the show was gonna turn out to be, but some of the stuff definately lacked planning, like Quinn's entire arc. TIIC wait a whole season to do stories they should've done in season two, like her rebellion against the Cheerios and her Nicole Julian impression (aka, her cartoonish obsession with popularity like the Popular Glamazons). Just WTF?

I didn't mind the side characters getting development, although I was sick of Becky by season 4.

[caracas1914]

What I don't understand was they brought in a new wave of characters in Season 4 and proceeded to recycle the same stock characters, and the show itself through canon or marketing/promos  called them "New Santana Lopez", Finn 2.0, the new Rachel, a new Puck, etc.    I even remember the marketing/promos directly  comparing Quinn to Kitty, as well as  Unique as a type of Mercedes/Kurt hybrid.

 

So even a revamped cast simply was  trotted out for  the same type of story lines (Virginity, cheating triangles, bitchy cheerleaders, bullied gays) so what exactly was the point of getting rid of so many of the veteran ensemble ?  To make matters worse, previously supporting players whose acting was far from the best of the cast (Darren, Chord and Heather) were thrust as the new leads to fill in the vacuum of Newbies who weren't passing muster and the exit of the stronger actors and characters from the choir room.

 

It was the combination of shitty writing (admittedly a problem there from day one) with weaker lead cast that spelled doom. 

 

The choir room as the "heart and soul" of the show makes no sense now if the lead characters have graduated and are reduced to returning mentors/teachers to a whole new bunch of nondescript high school choir who the show won't have the time to develop their individual storylines. Last year when Mercedes, Quinn, Mike, Puck and Santana were trotted back to prop the new Glee  it was transparently clear the void between them the Noobs.  So Season 6 will be worse:   They might as well be Vocal Adrenaline or the Warblers as far as the audience being invested in New Direction's  story.

Edited June 12, 2014 by caracas1914

[CleoCaesar]

What I don't understand was they brought in a new wave of characters in Season 4 and proceeded to recycle the same stock characters, and the show itself through canon or marketing/promos  called them "New Santana Lopez", Finn 2.0, the new Rachel, a new Puck, etc.    I even remember the marketing/promos directly  comparing Quinn to Kitty, as well as  Unique as a type of Mercedes/Kurt hybrid.

 

I chalk it up to a enormous condescension and contempt for their audience. It's been a kids/tween show since season 2 - and no matter how clumsy the writing, how preachy and Afterschool Special it was, fans kept panting all over it, buying songs, going to the concerts, etc. There really was no incentive for them to maintain any kind of quality. Season 4 - which I had/have the pleasure of skipping entirely - was such a "fuck you, we're going to peddle the exact same shit and even acknowledge that we're doing that, and you're still going to watch". And it was largely so. Except now that 0.6 finale rating can't lie. Game over.

[Hana Chan]

You knew that the new cast was in trouble when they didn't even bring back the show's biggest acting guns (Lea & Chris) and they were shown up by some of the weaker actors in the original cast. I love Amber and she's a total sweetheart (and has the best female voice in the cast), but she's hardly the best actor on TV. Harry can dance circles around pretty much anyone, but his acting comes a very distant second to his dancing. Yet they were showing up not only the noobs, but Darren and Chord as well

 

The show did everything possible to try to make the noobs work, and it ended up destroying Glee in the process. This is like pulling out all the stops to save a leg with gangreen and the patient dies as a result. And I'm not saying that new cast couldn't have pulled it off, but not when their characters are pale rehashes of the original cast (to the point where you were constantly comparing them to the originals and finding them lacking). Instead of wet mop Marley (who had all the charisma of beige paint drying on a beige wall), it might have been interesting for the new lead girl to be a fantastic singer, but who has absolutely no interest in joining ND or being a performer (her focus could be on her chemistry class because she wants to be the next Marie Curie). Or instead of jocks trotted out to be Finn 3.0 or Puck the Younger, bring in a guy who's into stuff like Marilyn Manson and Metallica. Something new that we haven't seen before and isn't just going to be a recycle of storylines that we've seen already and done by far stronger actors. Using the same "types" over and over again isn't going to give us a different result.

 

Glee could not have fallen more dramatically had the writers made a deliberate effort to tank the show. The fact that we had two seasons of Glee absolutely collasping and it's a result of the show runners doing what they thought would revitalize the show following losing their primary leads really shows just how not only incompetent, but arrogant the show runners were.

[Higgs]

Harry's dancing is just as good as Matt 's IMO. He just has a different style.

By that logic, Harry is also just as good as Baryshnikov, Paul Taylor, or Astaire. Dancing is about grace, fluidity, ease, and expressiveness, not acrobatics, gymnastics, or stilted robotics (sorry, Heather).

Edited June 13, 2014 by Higgs

[Sara2009]

I LOVE Matt's dancing more than almost anything, but his style is not the only one.

[Higgs]

There are certainly actresses out there, other than Lea Michele, who could have pulled off the vocals. Samantha Barks off the top of my head but there are plenty of other known and not known actresses who could have done it.

Lea:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x5a5xc9woZ

Samantha:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NyfS55_W_A8

It ain't even close. You might want to try again, and to show I'm sincere, I'll even provide a coded hint to a potential competitor: JMASCK.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Higgs

[camussie]

It ain't even close. You might want to try again, and to show I'm sincere, I'll even provide a coded hint to a potential competitor: JMASCK.

 

 

And you might want to stop assuming your opinion is FACT.  I happen to think BOTH are incredible vocal talents and both have the chops to pull off  Fanny Brice.  I don't need your coded hints when I find my first opinion to be perfectly valid.  Obviously you disagree but that doesn't make your opinion fact and mine not.  

Edited June 13, 2014 by camussie

[tom87]

And you might want to stop assuming your opinion is FACT.  I happen to think BOTH are incredible vocal talents and both have the chops to pull off  Fanny Brice.  I don't need your coded hints when I find my first opinion to be perfectly valid.  Obviously you disagree but that doesn't make your opinion fact and mine not.  

Amen.

 

I  love Lea's voice it is has been one voice in recent years that did catch my attention but I am not going to pretend it is a once in a generation voice.

 

I guess you are trying to defend Lea (or mybe just youself) but it doesn't help imo,  when the aggrandizing rhetoric even turns off a  big fan like me.

[caracas1914]

Yea Ryan Murphy's over the top assessment of Lea's vocal prowess kind of makes me chuckle. Lea is very good IMO but it's not as if all other singers have to give it up after hearing her sing. Even on Broadway she lost roles to other good seasoned performers before Glee.

Plus if Ryan thought she was that good he wouldn't have dumped her in Season 4 making for large stretches of that season Darren and Heather (!?) the "voice of a generation".

As to Glee's numbers:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/2013-14-nielsen-tv-ratings-depressing-chart.html

Glee lost a whopping 45 percent of its demos in one year, of the 4 Networks; only FOX's cancelled " Raising Hope" fared worse. If it wasn't for " The Quarterback" I suspect Glee would probably have had the deepest decline. The fact that that episode garnered a 2.9 Demo, which was the equivalent of the total demos of the last 3.5 episodes of the season doesn't bode well that Glee will get any permanent slot at mid season with such a glaring free fall. It's not that all network TV hasn't done badly, they clearly have, it's that Glee is scraping the very bottom.

It may just be a "floater" show, filling in slots here and there for FOX. Even with the lowered standards of summer scheduling FOX's "Harry" show with .4 ratings got the axe, so I doubt FOX will pamper anymore declining Glee ratings when it comes back midseason.

Edited June 13, 2014 by caracas1914

[tom87]

Plus if Ryan thought she was that good he wouldn't have dumped her in Season 4 making for large stretches of that season Darren and Heather (!?) the "voice of a generation".

 

This  was more to  do with Ryan trying to squeeze blood form the choir room  than anyhting. :)

 

I mean really at one point Heather had sung more than Lea and Lea had danced more than Heather.  The writers were just mental for that.

 

It may just be a "floater" show, filling in slots here and there for FOX. Even with the lowered standards of summer scheduling FOX's "Harry" show with .4 ratings got the axe, so I doubt FOX will pamper anymore declining Glee ratings when it comes back midseason.

 

 

I see glee getting a dump of episodes on Friday nights. 

 

Would they be albe to dump the last remaining episodes on to Oxygen with thier syndication deal?

Edited June 13, 2014 by tom87

[vb68]

It is indeed going on Friday nights.

[camussie]

I am actually surprised it is getting Friday nights during February sweeps.  I figured they would start to air them in March and double up so they were done before May sweeps.  Still it is the death slot and I expect little to no promotion

[tab19]

i'm also stunned they're airing during February sweeps.  I figured a March start, so they ran through March/April, with *maybe* the finale in May sweeps.  

[Anna Yolei]

Maybe TPTB want to have the time slot open in time for basketball playoffs? That's gotta bring in way more views than this show will.

[Hana Chan]

I don't think that this should come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. This is the television equivalent to being put on an ice flow and sent off to die in the wilderness. The episodes are going to air at a time of the year when ratings across the board are low, in a shit timeslot and just over two months to burn through all 13 episodes. That really speaks volumes of just how little the network thinks of the show. There's not even a remote shot for renewal so why bother wasting precious air time on a show that the DNR order was signed for ages ago. RIB is lucky to even be betting this much.

 

What a come down for a show that started off with so much promise and was a regular contender for the industry top awards.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Hana Chan

[tom87]

Glee repeat on Dec 26, 2014

 

9:00 PM

FOX ® Glee 0.3  1.03

 

4th place behind repeats of Dateline, Sharktank and Penn & Teller: Fool Us

[Pink ranger]

Well on the bright side the s5 finale attracted 1.87 viewers. If a repeat in the new less competitive time slot is earning only marginally less than the run of original episodes should be able to get around 2 million and hopefully a relatively dignified end. As a long time fan I hope for that

Edited December 28, 2014 by Pink ranger

[caracas1914]

The problem is that for Friday repeats/reruns that .03 ratings is something acceptable usually only for CW shows for the most part.   I realize that most network shows have slipped overall in the last few years (it seems the vast  majority of first run shows now hover between 1.1 and 1.8) , but it doesn't bode well if Glee was the lowest rated and had the  least amount of viewers of ANY show, including the CW on Friday night. When CW reruns/repeats best you it's not pretty.

 

I'm going to guess it was the worst numbers for any non CW  show the whole month of December, Sunday thru Friday runs.  

 

For Glee's sake, I hope they don't dip so far that they get yanked even from the shitty Friday at 9.00 Pm slot.

Edited December 28, 2014 by caracas1914

[Pink ranger]

Oh... That doesn't sound promising.

[Hana Chan]

The thing is, even on Friday nights in shitty time slots have to sell advertising space. With sub-basement ratings like this, the network will practically be giving those advertising slots away. It's one thing for FOX to accept that Glee won't be profitable, but no network can tolerate a show in its lineup that costs them money. Glee's got to pull in enough ratings to keep advertisers at least marginally interested in buying time. I can't see how FOX could tolerate the ratings slipping further and still be willing to air all of the final season, even in the accelerated rate that they planned.

[tom87]

Placing glee in just a 11 week run will ensure that advertising has a set price for it.  It will not be adjusted due to sweeps information.

 

Utopia was pulling in $79k for a .30 second spot on Fridays.   I could see glee getting around that amount at least. 

 

So 34 commercials at $79k is over 2.7 million an episodes (all approx # of course).   Cast cut backs on regulars and some regulars may have been cut back on episodes plus what I am sure are other budget cuts like no NY trips etc .  Glee will probably still make some money in the end this season.

[caracas1914]

Just curious: How low did "Utopia's" first run airings on Friday night go for FOX?

I suppose if FOX presells the block of advertising of Glee on Friday nights it might be a moot point, though I hear some advertisers demand concession , ad time and otherwise for drastically lower than expected ratings.

Considering Glee got .6 in prime time on Thursday night, I'd be surprised if they commanded as much as 79K on Fridays, IIRC "Utopia " did not dip that low in their midweek slot before being shifted to Friday's.

ETA:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/09/13/utopia-ratings-2/

Utopia dipped to .9 ratings in its Tuesday slot before being shifted to Fridays where it premiered with a .7 ratings and 2 million viewers.

It got cancelled with the .7 ratings and 1.6 million live viewers in its last first run episode.

Edited December 29, 2014 by caracas1914

[Hana Chan]

Since season 3, Glee's season premiere ratings have not exceeded the ratings for the previous season's finale. It's been steadily losing audience share for a long time now and I don't see anything being done by the show or network to try to change that dynamic. Glee ended season five with fewer than 2 million viewers and I don't see anything being done by the show or the network to try to reverse this trend. The odds are that even if Glee hadn't been moved into the Friday night death slot that it would have continued this rating slide.

 

The question for FOX is are they willing to write off revenue that they will have to sacrifice because of the poor expected showing for Glee's final season. The advertisers who had previously bought spots during Glee will rightfully question sinking advertising funds into these spots (where will be fewer eyeballs watching) and for FOX to keep them happy, they are going to have to give them a pretty significant price concession. It's lose/lose for FOX at this point and I don't think they can be faulted for deciding to cut their loses earlier on. They're contracted to take delivery of 13 episodes, but if they decided not to air all of them (which certainly has been done in the past) it might protect their bottom line better.

[caracas1914]

Glee season premier ratings:

 

Season 1:  3.9

Season 2:  5.6

Season 3:  4.0

Season 4:  3.1

Season 5:  2.0

 

Glee season finale ratings:

 

Season 1:  4.6

Season 2:  4.6

Season 3:  2.9

Season 4:  2.0

Season 5:    .6

Edited December 29, 2014 by caracas1914

[caracas1914]

Back in Season 3 it was estimated by some sources that Glee costs at least 3 million dollars to produce per  episode, with the extended Superbowl episode purported to have cost in excess of 6 million dollars.

 

So for Season 6 even with a reduced budget  it could be anywhere from 30-35 million dollars invested into production so it might seem a no brainer to allow  the episodes to air regardless in order to recoup some of those sunk costs with advertising revenue.  Ratings be damned.

 

However, those expenses have already been written off.   If a reruns of another show in that same slot better the ratings, FOX is going to sell that airtime even at discounted rates,  and if FOX has to somehow compensate for low ratings of Glee to advertisers with more add time, FOX may not find it's feasible to air those episodes.  The new management has obviously dismissed  Glee as part of the old regime (Reilly) and it could  create a bad precedent to allow a first run show that sinks below , say .5 in the ratings, anywhere on their prime time schedule for an extended period of time.

 

I suspect there is enough bad blood at FOX  that a show that dipped to .6 in the ratings was allowed to air a last season.  All of the prime time FOX shows cancelled in the previous 2013/14 season had better ending rating than Glee sunk to..

Edited December 29, 2014 by caracas1914

[fakeempress]

I also think they'll air the final 13 episodes and take the hit, if any, on the balance sheet. There may be other considerations such as the FOX/FX deals with Ryan, and it could be better for their syndication to have a complete series. Also, they scheduled the 13 episodes in less than 13 weeks (minimizing damage I guess).

Edited December 29, 2014 by fakeempress

[Hana Chan]

FOX canceled Firefly without airing all the episodes from the season ordered. That didn't stop them or Joss Weldon from working together again on Dollhouse.

 

If RM throws a fit that FOX decided not to air all episodes of Glee's final season despite the fact that the audience is all but non-existent, then it's going to reflect badly on him and not FOX. This is a business. Yes, FOX will want to keep good professional relations with Murray, But they also should not be held hostage to air a show that damages the network financially. They're already taking a loss over the production costs for Glee. To expect them to swallow further loses if the advertisers bolt is probably more than even the most unreasonable producer should expect.

[fakeempress]

Networks in general do a lot of first season cancellations when they don't see prospects for these shows, and have the pilot season. Fox especially has the reputation for trigger happy cancellations of first run shows,.The situation with Glee is different.

Is Ryan throwing a fit? By all accounts, he's been off doing AHS and 1001 other things, for quite a while. Talking about who's checked out of the show, Ryan's name should be on top of the list. But he's still running a business and clearly Fox was able to renegotiate with him after the final S5 ratings and the departure of Kevin Reilly. I also have no idea what the cutoff point is at which the network would take the decision not to run the final episodes on a dead night. I think Fox will run the 13 episodes and be done with it. They are airing two-hour premiere and two-hour finale for it, to be done as soon as possible. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by fakeempress

[Hana Chan]

I'm not saying that FOX won't run all the episodes. Merely that if they decided not to, they've get plenty of good reasons to justify that decision.

[caracas1914]

All things being equal , I would agree FOX would rather air all 13 episodes and let Ryan save face and write off Glee and both work again on future projects.

 

The 64 thousand dollar question ( which nobody knows the answer yet) is: has Glee hits it final bottom number per ratings?

I think this year "Utopia" for a first run episode scraped .5 on a Friday evening.
Would FOX still not blink if Glee hit that number initially and went even lower? What if Glee hit .4 or even a .3. ?

For  2014/15 as late as this past summer Ryan was publicly stating Glee would get a super sized 24 episode order and that changed.

Plus prior to that, some speculate there was some minimum number in S5 where Ryan was apparently forced by the network to dump the Noobs and covert to 100 % NY Glee, against his wishes. With those precedents, it's hard to believe that even Ryan wouldn't concede that there would be *some* bottom where FOX would have a legitimate reason to yank Glee off the air. My own wild guess is that if Glee hits .5 or lower on its season premiere even on a Friday all bets are off.

Edited December 29, 2014 by caracas1914

[caracas1914]

Ok this thread has a one week shelf life:

Glee will be premiering next week on Fridays with a two hour viewing: 8-10 PM.

Some historical ratings data

Season 5 Premeire: 2.0 (Thursday )

Season 5 Finale: .6 ( Tuesday)

Repeat (100) Jan.2- .3 (Friday) .95 million live

Sooo, prediction game for the ratings for the premiere , both ratings (18-49) and live viewers.

Winner has bragging rights for the top Glee Master of the week( and a prom Queen tiara)

I will go first:

Ratings: .5

Live Audience: 1.35 million

Any others? Common be brave it will all be forgotten in a week!

Edited January 4, 2015 by caracas1914

[tab19]

I have a question since I'm not entirely sure how they calculate the ratings.  I think the second hour might get more viewers than the first.  So - are we guessing at the highest rating at any point in the two hours?  Or do they average the two hours?  Or what?  (Am I overthinking this?  I'm overthinking this)

 

I think the second hour will get 1.0 (I don't know how to translate it to live audience). I think there will be a bump for being the premiere of the LAST season.  Plus people back for the originals - weren't the 100/101 ratings better than the rest of last season?

[caracas1914]

To keep it simple I'm thinking overall rating for the two hour period. Which is what Neilsen does.

For example, when "American idol" has two hour blocks they averaged the ratings to encompass the whole time period. However they can split out ratings per each half hour per each episode to see how each segment did.

In the last couple of years the ratings and live audience for Glee would usually dip in the second half.

I would be surprised if the ratings increased per Glee's Friday back to back episodes for the second half but anything is possible.

For the record, the 100/101 special episodes did not bump up the ratings. I think that was the clearest sign that irrevocably the GA had bailed on Glee it lost all its ratings mojo permanently.

[Hana Chan]

Looking at the ratings for all seasons, since season three the season premieres have failed to surpass or meet the ratings of the finale for the previous season. With the season five finale finishing behind the CW in the ratings run, the odds of Loser Like Me beating a measly 1.87 million viewers are pretty steep. With the huge audience loss, the dead zone time slot, it's position as mid-season replacement, minimal publicity and non-existent media buzz, it's likely that Glee will continue its ratings slide and will finish with well under 1 million viewers for the series finale.

 

Of course, the final season might get some good critical write-up to finish up a critical success, but given the quality of the spoilers, I highly doubt that. I think that the writing is on the wall that Glee is going to limp into oblivion as a complete ratings and critical flop.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Hana Chan

[shantown]

The ratings show the lack of faith the viewers have in RIB and their shoddy storytelling. The scheduling shows the lack of faith FOX has in RIB.

 

I'm laughing GLEEfully at both.

[shantown]

Not good, but not as bad as I thought:

2.3 million viewers / 0.7 rating (adults 18-49)

http://insidetv.ew.com/2015/01/10/glee-final-season-ratings/

[jaytee1812]

Can someone explain to me what the 0.7 rating means?

[shantown]

Can someone explain to me what the 0.7 rating means?

 I believe it's percentage of viewers in that age range, out of total viewers.

[caracas1914]

in its new night, Glee opened to a mere 2.3 million viewers and a 0.7 rating among adults 18-49. That’s down 65 percent from last season’s premiere and stood as the lowest-rated regular episode for a regular series on a major broadcast network last night, plus it’s easily Glee‘s weakest premiere ever.

 

If I'm also not mistaken, that's the lowest rated premeire of any returning on a major Network this year. 

(CBS, FOX, NBC, CBS).  It may the lowest rating EVER on a season premiere of a returning show. 

Somehow the meta joke of the ratings of "That's so Rachel" gets a bit more ironic.

Edited January 10, 2015 by caracas1914

[jaytee1812]

Puts to bed the idea it was the newbies people weren't watching.