TV execs who axe a show just short of the syndication change to save $ and reboot with a newer, younger cast to try and woo viewers. Fuck the established fanbase! Let’s go cheap and reboot!
Which is why I don’t buy TV time. 
Too much crap for too little gain.
No, it’s called Ow, My Balls!
Hey, I still miss Keen Eddie. 
Me too!
Is there anything else on?
I rarely have access to network television, but there are a couple reality-type shows that I enjoy. Mostly Canada’s Worst Driver and Holmes on Homes. Other than that I just cruise the 'Dope or ask friends for recommendations and buy the DVDs instead.
Recently though I had the (mis)fortune of seeing an episode of Scream Queens and had to resist the urge to slap someone through the screen. Some of those girls are just absolute bitches. Did they never leave junior high?
Sponsored by Brawndo, I believe.
I don’t think I’ve watched one episode of anything mentioned in this thread yet, well apart from America’s Funniest Home Videos. I have the attention span to handle a bunch of 30 second clips. I can’t pay enough attention to most TV shows to even care what’s happening. And they really do exist just to sell advertising time: no other reason.
You’re all aware that “reality TV”* only makes up a small percentage of all broadcast TV shows right?
Are you joking? Survivor is pretty much the quintessential format of reality shows. Also existing as a gameshow is hardly a mutually exlusive quality. Competition, elimination, and challenges are mainstays of the genre. You idiot. 
I would posit that “reality” shows in fact consume a fair and appreciable percentage of TV broadcast. My personal theory on the subject is that rather than being popular, reality TV proliferates because it’s cheap. It costs much less to hire a dozen actor/waitresses to act like complete douchebags and pay a single film crew to capture and edit it all together, than it does to worry about minutae such as acting, coherency, or plot.
Competition, elimination and challenges are not mainstays of “reality TV”. Reality TV was stuff like The American Family and Cops and The Real World and the like before TV writers started abusing the term to include Survivor and other shows because they’re 1) serial and 2) don’t follow the standard game show plot.
I’ve heard Deal or No Deal referred to as a “reality show” as well just because of the family helpers angle.
Hour long dramas account for more television programming than all other types of programming combined.
It’s got electrolytes!
Yeah, and call me (and many others) a skeptic when I say that I don’t believe Nielsen really captures a decent enough sample for ratings that support viewership of the crap on air. I’d like a comprehensive analysis of every type of media to get a better picture of what people are into. I’ll start the company and it shall be called Awesome Co. or Cut Co.
You should not blame viewers. Reality TV is not a super-high %.
It’s actually higher than viewership alone would cause. But reality TV has two things going for it:
Cheaper
No writers.
The writers striker has caused quite a decline in ratings of a good number of pre-strike one highly rated shows.
And, the cost per epi of some good shows is quite high.
For this we can blame greed- greed of the actors, the writers and the execs (mostly the execs and actors IMHO). Not the viewers.
And of course, in the UK, they also watch a lot of “unscripted” shows:
… *The X Factor last week helped boost ratings on Saturday, November 15, with a peak of 11.2 million tuning in.
ITV1’s hit reality show, … attracted an average of 10.6 million viewers and a 44% share between 7.20pm and 8.35pm, according to unofficial overnight figures.
The programme peaked at 11.2 million for the 15 minutes from 8.15pm.
Last week, the show averaged 10.2 million viewers and a 43% share between 7.20pm and 8.50pm.
The results show of the reality competition pulled in 9.5 million and a 43% share on Saturday between 9.35pm and 10.20pm.
Spin-off series The Xtra Factor brought 1 million and a multichannel share of 5% to ITV2 between 8.35pm and 9.35pm.
BBC1’s reality offering Strictly Come Dancing attracted 9.7 million viewers and a 42% share at 6.05pm, up 100,000 and one share point on last week.
Then, the channel’s family drama Merlin drew 5.9 million and a 24% share between 7.20pm and 8.05pm, up 400,000 and one share point on last week.
Harry Hill’s TV Burp brought 5.4 million and a 23% share to ITV1 between 6.50pm and 7.20pm.
ITV’s comedy event We are Most Amused, which marked Prince Charles’ 60th birthday, picked up 7.4 million and a 32% share between 8.35pm and 9.35pm and a further 6 million between 10.20pm and 10.50pm.
BBC2’s moving three-hour documentary The Fallen, which featured all the British personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, attracted 800,000 and a 5% share between 9.05pm and 12.05am.
Channel 4 did best with movie premiere The Transporter 2 with 1.7 million and an 8% share between 9.05pm and 10.45pm. A further 252,000 watched on Channel 4+1 an hour later
Channel Five’s biggest hitter of the night was a repeat of US drama CSI with 1.4 million and a 6% share between 9.05pm and 10.05pm.“.”*
So, UK has: Reality in the top 3, and quite a few of the top ten. 4?
Top 3 = 60 Minutes, “Dancing with Stars” (Reality in a way), and CSI, and only two in the top ten.
Shit, Prince Charles is only 60? He looks like hell.
Obviously TV decided it couldn’t operate on such low margins. :dubious:
Technically, ire should not be directed at the American viewing public at large, but rather focused upon the Nielson families. It’s their fault your favorite show has low viewership!
Did you even read the thread?
Thanks for the link, I’ve always heard that attributed to Heinlein.
That would only be true if the network produced the show. When they don’t they do not see any of the DVD money. If they take a 10% cut in add revenue, but cut their costs by 30%, that is a winning move for them.