The Wayward Pines Chronicle: WP in the Media

[KDeFlane]

I can't seem to return to my older post to update the ratings table i had started.  Last week's episode was the lowest in overnight ratings for its season, but we won't have the full DVR numbers for another few days yet.  I wish I could build a proper table here, but a list will do.  Most episodes doubled in viewership as delayed viewing was added in.

 

Episode -> [same night] -> [+3days] -> [+7days] = [(18-49Demo/Share),  (Viewers in millions)]

#1 -> [1.0/3, 3.76] -> [1.9, ----] -> [2.1/7, ----]
#2 -> [1.2/4, 4.59] -> [1.8, 6.50] -> [2.3/8, 7.51]
#3 -> [1.2/4, 3.97] -> [1.8, 6.04] -> [2.2/8, 7.02]
#4 -> [1.1/4, 4.20] -> [2.1, 6.79] -> [2.4/8, 7.53]
#5 -> [1.2/4, 4.24] -> [2.5, 6.43] -> [2.2/., 7.17]
#6 -> [1.2/4, 3.45] -> [1.2, 6.27] -> [2.4/., 7.08]
#7 -> [1.0/4, 3.38] -> [1.8, 5.85] -> [2.3/., 6.91]
#8 -> [1.0/4, 3.37] -> [1.8, 5.85] -> [coming]
#9 -> [0.9/3, 3.25] -> [2.0, 5.81]
#10->[1.2/5, 3.98]

 

(updated with July25 data, L+7 coming July 28)

Edited July 25, 2015 by KDeFlane

[SimoneS]

Good season finale 18 to 49 demo for Wayward Pines, 1.2.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/07/24/tv-ratings-thursday-wayward-pines-finale-ties-high-under-the-dome-up-the-astronaut-wives-club-mistresses-big-brother-down/436381/

 

M. Night Shyamalan indicates that a second season is in the works:

http://deadline.com/2015/07/wayward-pines-m-night-shyamalan-tv-debut-season-2-1201483711/

[legaleagle53]

Oh, joy.  Excuse me while I wet myself with excitement.  Or retch in horror.  I'm not sure which.

[SlackerInc]

Hard for me to imagine they'll resist the temptation for another season, given the strong ratings:

 

According to preliminary national estimates from Nielsen, Fox’s “Wayward Pines” averaged a 1.2 rating/5 share in adults 18-49 and 3.9 million viewers overall in the 9 o’clock hour, matching its high in the demo. “Wayward” was already summer’s top-rated scripted program in adults 18-49 with a 1.92 rating in “live+3,” and its finale should also stand as the full week’s No. 1 scripted original in “live plus same-day.” There’s been no word regarding a possible second season of the M. Night Shyamalan drama starring Matt Dillon.

 

[Free]

Hard for me to imagine they'll resist the temptation for another season, given the strong ratings:

 

Under the Dome 2.0 in the making, only without any of the actors that made it bearable to begin with.

[DEM]

To me the Deadline article seemed to indicate more like S2 is a possibility, but they're in the very early days of thinking about it -- rather than "in the works."  I'll only want to watch it if it's about Nurse Pam and Kate breaking free, and Ben & Amy had a tragic accident off-screen.

 

This was an interesting tidbit:

SHYAMALAN: Fox was very, very patient with me, and that is a rare, rare thing. I mean so much so that I asked them if we could stop shooting for six weeks for me to catch my breath and talk to the writers. That’s a big request and not an easy one and they said yes. They trusted me, and that six weeks turned out to be everything. I mean, it really turned out to be everything. We got our feet under us. I got the writers that I felt could really nail it.

 

DEADLINE: How far in were you when you hit that brake?

 

SHYAMALAN: We stopped at Episode four.

 

Might that account for some of the discontinuities (e.g., Pam) that happened around ep 5?

Edited July 25, 2015 by DEM

[Free]

SHYAMALAN: Fox was very, very patient with me, and that is a rare, rare thing. I mean so much so that I asked them if we could stop shooting for six weeks for me to catch my breath and talk to the writers. That’s a big request and not an easy one and they said yes. They trusted me, and that six weeks turned out to be everything. I mean, it really turned out to be everything. We got our feet under us. I got the writers that I felt could really nail it.

DEADLINE: How far in were you when you hit that brake?

SHYAMALAN: We stopped at Episode four. That’s the thing about TV, it’s like a train that never stops, and it was a beautiful thing to stop for a bit because you just catch your breath for a second and you catch up. I was not ready to deliver that much material that fast, and they were just gracious to allow me to learn.

 

Wait a minute, that's around the time right before the big twist took place and the show went downhill, if Shyamalan really had a hand in that, it would make sense.

[JenE4]

He changed the writers halfway through filming?! I didn't read the books, but based on the book comparison thread, it sounds like all of those things they brought up the first few episodes that we were harping on all along as clues that were completely dropped (Beverly saying "I always believed you" and where the hell do the buffalo burgers come from if they're focusing on the food so much) were mysteries actually covered in the books, so those writers probably put those details in intending to go back to them, and then Shamalan decided to throw the books (and writers) out the window entirely and go with an "inspired by" series that apparently didn't follow the books at all. (Again, saying this as someone who hasn't read the books personally.) So this explains all of the criticisms we have about the inconsistencies of this series. If we had the beginning set of writers all the way through, it probably would have been awesome. And even if we had the second set of writers the whole time, it probably would have been a cool series--for those who didn't read the books or didn't expect it to follow the books.

[ottoDbusdriver]

He changed the writers halfway through filming?! I didn't read the books, but based on the book comparison thread, it sounds like all of those things they brought up the first few episodes that we were harping on all along as clues that were completely dropped (Beverly saying "I always believed you" and where the hell do the buffalo burgers come from if they're focusing on the food so much) were mysteries actually covered in the books, so those writers probably put those details in intending to go back to them, and then Shamalan decided to throw the books (and writers) out the window entirely and go with an "inspired by" series that apparently didn't follow the books at all. (Again, saying this as someone who hasn't read the books personally.) So this explains all of the criticisms we have about the inconsistencies of this series. If we had the beginning set of writers all the way through, it probably would have been awesome. And even if we had the second set of writers the whole time, it probably would have been a cool series--for those who didn't read the books or didn't expect it to follow the books.

 

I think @JenE4 is onto something -- if you look at the writing credits for each episode, the Duffer Brothers (Matt and Ross) show up around Episode 5 and end up writing Episodes 5, 6, 9 and 10 whereas creator Chad Hodge and author of the books Blake Crouch did most of the writing in Episodes 1 to 5.

 

So I'm thinking we can place the bulk of the blame for the shitty back half of the season on the Duffer Brothers -- looking at their IMDB credits, the Duffer Brothers have never written an episode of TV before WP.

 

Matt Duffer -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1819972

Ross Duffer -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1819973

[Lebanna]

This explains everything about this show.

Damn Shyamalan and the horse he rode in on. I don't know how his first three movies (yes, I actually liked Signs, logic can GTF) worked out ok. But I'm now completely convinced that that success had very little to do with the great man himself.

[Free]

This explains everything about this show.

Damn Shyamalan and the horse he rode in on. I don't know how his first three movies (yes, I actually liked Signs, logic can GTF) worked out ok. But I'm now completely convinced that that success had very little to do with the great man himself.

 

It's what many people have been wondering since his decline.

 

 

I think @JenE4 is onto something -- if you look at the writing credits for each episode, the Duffer Brothers (Matt and Ross) show up around Episode 5 and end up writing Episodes 5, 6, 9 and 10 whereas creator Chad Hodge and author of the books Blake Crouch did most of the writing in Episodes 1 to 5.

 

So I'm thinking we can place the bulk of the blame for the shitty back half of the season on the Duffer Brothers -- looking at their IMDB credits, the Duffer Brothers have never written an episode of TV before WP.

 

Matt Duffer -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1819972

Ross Duffer -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1819973

 

It definitely explains a lot, The Duffer bros seem inexperienced based on their bios.

[Fable]

Well, that explains a lot.  Why would you hand the keys to your shiny new Lexus over to a newb with a permit? 

[Free]

Well, that explains a lot.  Why would you hand the keys to your shiny new Lexus over to a newb with a permit? 

 

Exactly, especially halfway through your first season whcih makes it even worse.

[SlackerInc]

This was an interesting tidbit:

 

Might that account for some of the discontinuities (e.g., Pam) that happened around ep 5?

 

Oh, wow, totally.  Mind blown.

 

Wait a minute, that's around the time right before the big twist took place and the show went downhill, if Shyamalan really had a hand in that, it would make sense.

 

I think this clearly shows how the two halves of the season don't fit together.  But to characterize it as "the show went downhill" fits, for me, mainly with the Pam character.  There is no way they should have massively changed her like that.  As for the rest, though: presumably they were always going to have it be two thousand years in the future, for realsies (to not do so would be a much more massive change from the books than they actually did).  So I just have to wonder how the writers of the early episodes were going to pay off stuff like having a hotel and a clerk who demanded payment, having Ethan wake up in the woods with no car around, have the guy at the bar gaslight Ethan about Beverly never having worked there, or the whole business with the escape from the hospital.  That stuff just doesn't seem to fit with anything about the fundamental premise of this world as I understand it.

[Free]

Oh, wow, totally.  Mind blown.

 

 

I think this clearly shows how the two halves of the season don't fit together.  But to characterize it as "the show went downhill" fits, for me, mainly with the Pam character.  There is no way they should have massively changed her like that.  As for the rest, though: presumably they were always going to have it be two thousand years in the future, for realsies (to not do so would be a much more massive change from the books than they actually did).  So I just have to wonder how the writers of the early episodes were going to pay off stuff like having a hotel and a clerk who demanded payment, having Ethan wake up in the woods with no car around, have the guy at the bar gaslight Ethan about Beverly never having worked there, or the whole business with the escape from the hospital.  That stuff just doesn't seem to fit with anything about the fundamental premise of this world as I understand it.

 

It would explain a lot, the discrepencies in characters, the 1st half trying to set up some mysterious things like with Beverly's character, Pam going from a psycho gleefully trying to have reckonings to turning into a voice of reason within a few episodes, etc.  The differences are jarring in retrospect.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Free

[jhlipton]

I actually liked Signs, logic can GTF

 

There's logic, and there's "We are highly allergic to water -- it's like powerful acid to us.  What planet should we try to conquer?  How about the one that is 2/3s water and the creatures have water in every part of their bodies."  

 

ETA:

They're at it again!  No M Night, or "twists", so it might be decent...

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/good-behavior-tnt-pilot-michelle-dockery-1201539028/

TNT has handed a formal pilot order to “Good Behavior,” a drama from “Wayward Pines” creator Chad Hodge, The project is based on the Letty Dobesh novels by author Blake Crouch.

Edited July 27, 2015 by jhlipton

[Tabasco Cat]

This does explain a lot. I went to great lengths to avoid spoilers for WP while it was on, but dayum. If someone had pointed out - and it's not even a spoiler ffs - that the producer switched writers halfway through the season I could've saved myself some time. That's the last creative endeavor by M Shymala (or whatever his name is) that I will ever spend a minute of my time on. He needs to be doing menial farmhand work someplace in the middle of nowhere, not working in Hollywood.

[Free]

There's logic, and there's "We are highly allergic to water -- it's like powerful acid to us.  What planet should we try to conquer?  How about the one that is 2/3s water and the creatures have water in every part of their bodies."  

 

ETA:

They're at it again!  No M Night, or "twists", so it might be decent...

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/good-behavior-tnt-pilot-michelle-dockery-1201539028/

 

Don't forget they're also weak against doors when they're trapped inside a house.  XD.

[SlackerInc]

Dan Fienberg is highly skeptical of what M. Night said.  Here are some excerpts from a conversation we had about it on Facebook after I posted the link:

"I honestly put very little stock in anything Shyamalan says on the subject..."

 

"I think he was in charge of virtually nothing. And I certainly don't think he was in charge of who wrote what episodes."

 

"[H]e's acting like TV is a director-driven medium and like he was the showrunner on 'Wayward Pines,' which he definitively WAS NOT. So whatever did or didn't happen after four episodes or whatever, I'm sure he was a part of the decision, but I'm guessing it was a fairly small part in the grand scheme of things."

[KDeFlane]

(couldn't edit last post; easier to quote myself and add new data below)

 

Episode -> [same night] -> [+3days] -> [+7days] = [(18-49Demo/Share),  (Viewers in millions)]

#1 -> [1.0/3, 3.76] -> [1.9, ----] -> [2.1/7, ----]

#2 -> [1.2/4, 4.59] -> [1.8, 6.50] -> [2.3/8, 7.51]

#3 -> [1.2/4, 3.97] -> [1.8, 6.04] -> [2.2/8, 7.02]

#4 -> [1.1/4, 4.20] -> [2.1, 6.79] -> [2.4/8, 7.53]

#5 -> [1.2/4, 4.24] -> [2.5, 6.43] -> [2.2/., 7.17]

#6 -> [1.2/4, 3.45] -> [1.2, 6.27] -> [2.4/., 7.08]

#7 -> [1.0/4, 3.38] -> [1.8, 5.85] -> [2.3/., 6.91]

#8 -> [1.0/4, 3.37] -> [1.8, 5.85] -> [2.1/., 6.51]

#9 -> [0.9/3, 3.25] -> [2.0, 5.81] -> [2.1/., 6.22]

#10->[1.2/5, 3.98] -> [2.0, 6.37] -> [coming]

 

(updated with Aug.5 data, finale L+7 coming Aug.10)

[jhlipton]

 

Episode -> [same night] -> [+3days] -> [+7days] = [(18-49Demo/Share),  (Viewers in millions)]

 

 

It looks like the "Same Night" ratings peaked at episode 5 ("The Truth"), but word of mouth told people not to bother, so +3 and +7 ratings dropped.  From there a steady decline until "What the hell, may as well see how this mess ends..."

 

Even so, those are pretty high ratings for a summer show, I think.

[Free]

It looks like the "Same Night" ratings peaked at episode 5 ("The Truth"), but word of mouth told people not to bother, so +3 and +7 ratings dropped.  From there a steady decline until "What the hell, may as well see how this mess ends..."

 

Basically, watch until the big twist and then watch how it ends in the finale.

[AConspiracy]

I noticed a blurb in this week's Entertainment Weekly that was something like:

 

Wayward Pines:One of the summer's successes. The limited sci-fi series did well and had a satisfying ending.

So now Fox is scrambling to figure out how to continue the series.

Which tells us "limited" is only applied if the ratings are bad.

[Free]

Which tells us "limited" is only applied if the ratings are bad.

 

Under the Dome 2.0, tbh.

[ottoDbusdriver]

I noticed a blurb in this week's Entertainment Weekly that was something like:

 

Wayward Pines:One of the summer's successes. The limited sci-fi series did well and had a satisfying ending.

So now Fox is scrambling to figure out how to continue the series.

Which tells us "limited" is only applied if the ratings are bad.

 

It had a satisfying ending -- since when ?

[legaleagle53]

Well, as I said elsewhere, I'll tune in if it is renewed, but only because morbid curiosity makes me wonder where they think they're going to go with it, especially since the main cast all went their separate ways long ago and they pretty much painted themselves into a corner by tacking on that ridiculous ending instead of at least trying to adhere to the ending in the books.

[Free]

they pretty much painted themselves into a corner by tacking on that ridiculous ending instead of at least trying to adhere to the ending in the books.

 

The show itself feels limited to begin with because of the premise, then add in the fact that the actors' contracts expired and that the show itself was on the shelf for a while before it actually aired as a Summer show.  So they were left with the remaining characters in the end if they wanted to continue it, that and they already burned through all 3 books in a 10 episode season.

[jhlipton]

I'll come here for the first few episodes, but won't watch unless it sounds really compelling (not holding my breath -- Galavant [another limited series expandined with great glee to another season] this ain't)

[KDeFlane]

I can't edit my earlier table post, but here is the L+7 data for the finale:

#10->[1.2/5, 3.98] -> [2.0, 6.37] -> [2.3, 6.96]

Not bad. 

 

I still have all of the episodes on my DVR.  I really should be a completionist and watch the finale a third time, just to look for more details, but my motivation has dropped. I do remember seeing at least one more example of that quirky barcode made of triangles, but I don't think we were ever meant to be able to decode it ourselves.

 

I had my computer wallpaper background of the blue-tinted forest for the longest time.  I've moved on.  *sigh*  Maybe we'll all meet again in the fall for something even better.

[jhlipton]

I can't edit my earlier table post, but here is the L+7 data for the finale:

Not bad. 

The +3Days and +7Days follow the same trend as the Same Day ratings:  A bump at episode 2, then falling (the +3 and +7 don't fall as fast or as far as the Same Day), and a drop-off after episode 5.  There's an uptick at the last episode, but not up to the second episode's peak.  This tells me people only turned out of morbid curiosity, not that there's a huge audience for a second season.

Edited August 20, 2015 by jhlipton

[seamusk]

I don't know. That's pretty typical for heavily hyped shows to have a bunch of people check out the first episode or two, then have a bit of a drop off, then pick up some additional viewers later on based on word of mouth or whatever.

[Free]

I don't know. That's pretty typical for heavily hyped shows to have a bunch of people check out the first episode or two, then have a bit of a drop off, then pick up some additional viewers later on based on word of mouth or whatever.

 

It picked up because of the big twist in the middle and the end as finales sometimes get a bump out of curiousity and people wanting to know how it ends.

[jhlipton]

I don't know. That's pretty typical for heavily hyped shows to have a bunch of people check out the first episode or two, then have a bit of a drop off, then pick up some additional viewers later on based on word of mouth or whatever.

 

Except it didn't pick up additional viewers.  It shed them like a white Persian on a black silk dress (or vice versa...)  and only picked up for the fnal episode.

[seamusk]

Except it didn't pick up additional viewers.  It shed them like a white Persian on a black silk dress (or vice versa...)  and only picked up for the fnal episode.

 

Yes it did. Yes it peaked at two episodes and then dropped. Then it picked up additional viewers as the season developed.  I'm not sure why people want to spin this as a bad thing. Most shows that are heavily promoted premier to higher numbers then where they settle. There is nothing new about that.

[Free]

Yes it did. Yes it peaked at two episodes and then dropped. Then it picked up additional viewers as the season developed.  I'm not sure why people want to spin this as a bad thing. Most shows that are heavily promoted premier to higher numbers then where they settle. There is nothing new about that.

 

It got a bump for the big twist in episode 5 and the finale, otherwise it seems fairly steady between 1.0-1.2, 3-4 million-ish range, even the DVR and the live numbers seem stable.

 

Spin?  It's just fairly stable throughout the numbers.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Free

[SlackerInc]

Except it didn't pick up additional viewers.  It shed them like a white Persian on a black silk dress (or vice versa...)  and only picked up for the fnal episode.

 

But as you yourself said upthread, these are good numbers for a summer show.  Heck, in today's TV environment, they're not that bad for a non-summer show.  They are certainly good enough to give FOX an incentive to bring the show back next summer.

[Free]

They are certainly good enough to give FOX an incentive to bring the show back next summer.

 

Sometimes it's better to leave things as it is instead of beating things into the ground.

[SimoneS]

Sometimes it's better to leave things as it is instead of beating things into the ground.

 

Networks are in business to make profit so they don't care about beating things into the ground. If FOX sees more profit can be made from WP, there will be another season.

[Free]

Networks are in business to make profit so they don't care about beating things into the ground. If FOX sees more profit can be made from WP, there will be another season.

 

Except I wasn't even talking about profitability or the prospect of another season, not to mention the show isn't even that big of a hit to begin with, it was just stable enough to keep above water and that's it, but the momentum isn't something that'll last.  It had the novelty of being a short 10 episode season, was shelved until they decided to premiere it this Summer, went through all 3 books, already went though a big game changing twist, and lost the good actors since their contracts have expired.  By contrast, Under the Dome started out as a huge hit that premiered in the 3.0s demo which is why they milked it, as well as having special, lucrative deals along with other CBS shows like Extant and Zoo.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Free

[giovannif7]

Fox renews Wayward Pines for Season 2.

[photo fox]

Nooooo!!!

I... I don't even understand how this is possible, story-wise.

[fishcakes]

[ottoDbusdriver]

Fox renews Wayward Pines for Season 2.

 

Nooooo!!!

I... I don't even understand how this is possible, story-wise.

 

This is going to be similar to the Leftovers in that they burned through all of the source material in the first season, but in the case of Wayward Pines they will just be pulling shit of of their asses and hope that somebody watches.

 

Seriously, how did this get renewed ?

[thuganomics85]

I assuming that they have some other kind of plan besides following up the final "twist."  Because if they really want to make Ben the lead, they are so screwed.

 

Also, since it ended in the deaths of both Matt Dillion and Terrence Howard's characters, I wonder which former Crash co-stars will appear next.  Don Cheadle?  Brendan Fraiser?  Michael Pena?  Ryan Phillippe?  Chris "Ludacris" Bridges?!

 

Either way, I totally see another Under the Dome situation arising.  And that is totally not a good thing.

[jhlipton]

I won't be watching but I will check here to see just how bad it is.

[SimoneS]

I am looking forward to season 2 although I have to agree that I have no clue what the story will be about. They can easily recast Ben. It could be that Matt Dillion's character was cloned. It is science fantasy, anything is possible. 

Edited December 10, 2015 by SimoneS

[legaleagle53]

And here, apparently, is how they're going to do it:  http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/wayward-pines-creator-leaves-fox-series-41009/?utm_content=bufferbcde4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

4029, here we come, ready or not!

[SlackerInc]

Seriously, how did this get renewed ?

See my post upthread. It got good ratings (and yes, it was a hit for a summer show in 2015), and this is capitalism.

An interesting element here is that Chad Hodges, the original showrunner, repeatedly insisted this was a one-and-done, self-contained story.

He has been replaced as showrunner.

Artistic integrity cannot be allowed to get in the way of corporate profits.

Edited December 17, 2015 by SlackerInc

[thuganomics85]

New star for a new season, of course: Jason Patric will be the new lead, and will be a brilliant surgeon instead of some kind of law enforcement guy.

 

Favorite part of the article is Shyamalan describing him as a "believable" actor.  That just seems like a strange complement.  Should most actors be believable in their roles?  Aren't you setting the bar a bit low?  Then again, I guess he was the man who hired Mark Wahlberg to play a high school teacher, so maybe he knows he hasn't always been on point in that aspect.

[SonofaBiscuit]

Djimon Hounsou added to the cast of Wayward Pines season 2.