Hey guys here are the rating for when Friday Night Lights came on a couple of nights ago. I got it from fnl-online.com

Are these good ratings?

@ 8:00 PM:
Friday Night Lights R (NBC)
Viewers: 1.69 million (#4), A18-49: 0.5/ 2 (#4)

@ 9:00 PM:

Friday Night Lights R (NBC)
Viewers: 1.89 million (#4), A18-49: 0.6/ 2 (#4)

@10:00PM:
Friday Night Lights R (NBC)
Viewers: 2.13 million (#3), A18-49: 0.8/ 3 (#3)

Source: The Programming Insider

pretty fair.......

I have to say, I am thrilled to hear that FNL is back for Season 2! This is, by far, one of the best programs on tv! I think that the name of the show pays too much reference to football and therefore may be eliminating potential viewers because of that. I love football and I, a female with 4 kids and 42 years old, may be in the minority for women for that reason. However...I really believe that the drama that goes on within the show's characters makes it very appealing to women...think SOAP OPERA!!! If NBC could have picked a better title or market the show as less of a show for football fanatics the show might find more viewers! Yes, there is a lot of football infused into the show....but usually the football "game" isn't shown until the end of each show. I have mentioned the show to so many people who respond, "I have heard of the show, when is it on? Friday nights?" Which, given its title, is understandable. Maybe with its new night on Friday nights it will fare better. Although, for those of us who are big into our own local high school football...we won't be viewing it Friday nights at its airtime because we will be at our own game. I definately plan to use the tried and true DVR!

I hardly ever write on these things. But I know ocasionally people pay attention to them. I really like this show from the start. I loved the movie and respect Peter Berg. But in order for it to survive, which I hope it does, it's going to need new people watching it. So NBC is going to have to start advertising it in a light that new people will want to see what all of the fuss is about.

the only problem there though is that they dont have reruns. shows are too hard to just jump into. u watch it once, get confused and then stop watching. they NEED reruns and i would be ratings would jump.

So, the news says this morning that FNL has the worst ratings ever...
Is NBC trying to kill the show? GET IF OFF FRIDAY NIGHT!! People are out partying.
FNL is clearly the Best show to come out in a long time. Critical acclaim got it renewed, but if they leave it on Friday, it'll be gone.
HEY, BONEHEADS at NBC. Move it, so it can stick around!
(just my opinion)
StevieB

Its more than Friday Night. Read the comments in the thread titled "disappointed in Season 2". Here long time loyal viewers of the show express their unhappiness with the writing directions the show has taken. Writing was always the strongest point. We will never get new people when loyal viewers are this unhappy about the dark depressing no hope and NO-humor direction of the show. I begged last year for more humor, and they went in the opposite direction...and its failing among true FNL fans. Come-on NBC, we loved last year....why?? this dark dramatic turn for every character?? Your wonderful mix last year got every acclaim you could get--why go dark and depressing to attract more viewers?? I totally don't get it...and the ratings back my saddness up !!

One thing I want to know........why aren't they promoting Friday Night Lights more. I can't tell how many ads, I've seen on TV or heard on the radio for Heros......Bionic Woman......Journey Man. I'm sick of it. I thought, someone new had taken over promotion, for Friday Night Lights. I guess they are using, tin cans and string, to promote Friday Night Lights.

I used to think they weren't promoting the show a lot either- but they've definately been running a lot of ads on Thursday nights (when I watch The Office)

I do wish the ratings would pick up. I myself just discovered the show over the summer. I also know that GMMR.com promotes the show a lot- and quite a few people have started watching because of it

It needs its own predictable timeslot. Although I am available to watch on Friday nights, I don't think it's a good idea.

A great thing about the show is that it gave you something to talk to your teenage kids about....whether you like it or not, they touched on subjects that our teens ARE experiencing. Right, wrong, moral, unethical, it opened up dialogue.

Unless my web data is wrong (and its not) FNL is in big/huge trouble.
8:00 NBC--Deal or No Deal --Rated NUMBER ONE
9:00 NBC--FNL--Rated #4 (last place & lost 53% of audience lead-in)
10:00 NBC--Las Vegas--Rated #2
------------------Thus FNL had #1 show as lead in and dropped to last place-#4!!! Then After FNL, viewers returned to NBC to watch Las Vegas and it was #2. The viewers really are not watching FNL, and they were on NBC, left during FNL, then returned after FNL. I fear the death of the show is upon us and the Season 2 dark/depressing direction has even loyal viewers from Season 1 considering leaving the show. Could it get any worse??

The fact that Deal Or No Deal is the highest rated show on Fridays is terrifying. That show is an embarrassment, and Howie Mandel, with his shaved head and ridiculous soul patch, looks like an enormous penis. I guess you have to chalk up the ratings disparity, especially the drop off from "Deal" to FNL than back up to Las Vegas to the "people are really dumb" theory.

The plot will obviously lighten up, and people who are real fans of the show should stick with it.

I totally agree......AndersonG......The plot will lighten up or change. We are just 2 episodes into a 22 episode series. Go lets just take a breath, and relax and watch. I bet, we will be surprise, when we see, where this wonderful show takes us. We have not been, disappointed in the past. We just gotta believe and watch.

I will stay...and hope...of course...we all will until all hope is gone. But TexasDreams, here is the BIG fear. Nearly half (10-11 episodes) are already shot and "In-the-can". Thus, unless there is some unbelievable twist, the paths we are watching are already shot and ready to "air" on TV. How can they fix this direction with EVERY character without starting over...and its too late for that. I did so love the OLD show....

OK, I'll admit it...I am worried. If the ratings are as disappointing as I have heard then this show could be in deep deep trouble. But that said, as a HUGE die hard fan of this show, here are my thoughts:

Ratings

The move to Friday night was done for 2 reasons. First, the obvious, with the title of the show it made sense. But second, and more imoprtantly, it ws done to LOWER the ratings EXPECTATIONS. There is a reason NBC promoed the show so little all summer. They KNEW it was just never going to garrner big ratings. But they also knew how much crap they would take if they cancelled a show that was SO critically acclaimed for its quality. So they moved it to a time slot where no matter what happened it was never going to get big ratings...but didnt have to. The good news for that is that we probably get a full season 2 before they cancel the show. Enough new NBC shows have been tanking (see Journeyman) that there will be plenty of space for the mid season replacements. I think NBC will do what they did wiht Studio 60 if the ratings get REALLY bad. They put the show on hiatus for a while but give it the summer to end on its own with a full load of episodes. If the ratings pick up even a little, its still a solid show to have (like Las Vegas which SUCKS but has somehow stayed on for 5 years) in the "death time slot" on Friday. So in the end, barring a wirters strike, I do think we will get our 22 episodes of season 2...but unless the ratings pick up some, that will be it.

Plot Lines

I think we ned to give the writers a break here. This show is about REAL life...and real life is not always pretty and happy. And they are clearly using the first few weeks to set up the story lines for the season...much as they did last year with Jason's paralysis, Matt's home life, Riggins internal issues and affair wiht lyla, etc. For example....

Tami and Eric- In real life, if a couple wht a teenage girl were separated right after having a new baby, you're **** right there would be tension and strife. Raising an infant WITH a nuclear family is hard enough...for a mom whose husband is a plane ride away it must be horrendous as evidenced by Tami's near breakdown! This story line is obviously being used to get Eric back to Dillon and once he does, things will calm down...but as I see it, this storyline, while drpressing, is both necessary and realistic.

Julie- She's 16. Her father is not living with her. Her mother is a mess and there is a new baby in the house. Does ANYONE really think she should be happy? She's a teen and acting as any teen would in this situation whihc again makes this storyline very realistic. Again, once Eric comes back from Austin, things will settle in.

The Twist- OK, I'll admit it...I hated the "twist". But its also not as unrealistic as some feel. Landry is desparately in love with Tyra, and in an emotionally crazed moment, made a terrible mistake. But can any of us say we would not have done the exact same thing if we saw that happening to someone we loved? As to the aftermath...they're kids! They got scared and reacted. IMO, this storyline was used to being the two together in a realistic manner as a couple because they are so good together on screen. How else would the town "hottie/tramp" fall for the "geek"? It would take an emotionally charged event whihc this was. So long as they wrap this up quickly and move on...I think it will be fine.

The Football Scenes- No, there havent been enough yet...but its September. And how much football do we really want there to be until Eric is coach again which seems inevitable.

Lyla- Her entire WORLD has been turned upside down. A year ago she was a senior cheerleader, dating the star QB, living in a house wiht her family and looking forward to her future. Fast forward 1 year. She's graduated, her QB is paralyzed and they broke up, her father is out of the house and getting divorced. She's a mess. Is it any surprise she's turned to religion here?

Bottom line, if you are unhappy with the storylines of season 2, then you have to blame season 1. No matter how much we loved it, the writers in season 1 had Eric take the TMU job, had Jason and Lyla break up, had Buddy cheat with Tyra's mom, had landry and Tyra start getting together, had Tami get pregnant, had Matt's Grandmother be mentaly ill, and had Julie beginning to rebel . All the things we loved about season 1 are the REASON we are getting what we are getting in season 2. But give them time...if I recall, I didnt love the first few episodes of season 1 either.

So I am a lot less woried about the plots then I am about the ratings. I still think we will get the full season...but it may be in spurts over the year and we are probably not going to see season 3...unless more poeple get their heads out of their butts and watch the show.

WELL SAID!!!!

BRAVO!!!!!

My Thoughts EXACTLY!!!!!!

Thanks.

My LEAST favorite episode last year was the pilot. I found it depressing and some what over the top.

Sound familiar????

I have full faith that these writers will give us a terrific season once they get the storylines set whihc is what these first few weeks are about. I am more concerned that NBC won't let those stories be told in full should the rating not get at least a little better!

MSG12, well said, although I thought the pilot was beyond perfect...sublime, even.

AndersonG, you had me laughing and crying at the same time.

Someone else upthread mentioned the lack of promo by NBC. I watch plenty of NBC shows, news, sports, and have seen next to nothing behind FNL and more BW than necessary.

VERY WELL SAID MG12.....and in all fairness we do "OWE" it to the superior writers to see where these storylines go. My fear is we will not attract new viewers or ratings, but in the Friday timeslot, maybe we don't "have" to . You're right that Season one set all this chaos up and it was coming if the stories stayed real. I would have gone in a different direction since it had such dismal ratings to attract new viewers. These season 2 stories do make sense to loyal viewers, even if hard to watch, but they sure will not bring NEW viewers and that is the dollar&cents bottom line to staying on the air. Half the season is in the can, so we will see where it goes from here and we just have to trust in our writers...an easy thing to do. GREAT points however.

I definitely agree with the OP about everything. I think the show is just fine, while I haven't been as "into it" as I was last year, I believe I will get there eventually...and this weeks episode sure looks like a doozy (Tami hits Julie?! as seen in previews..). Honestly, I don't think I was really that into the first two episodes of season 1. You need to build up some storylines to get the season rolling. I agree especially about the "The Twist", and I think it makes a ton of sense now that you said they needed something to get Tyra and Landry together, I totally agree. I don't think its that far fetched either...he didn't MEAN to kill him, it was an accident, and then they freaked out. After all, they were on the way to the hospital when he died, so you have to give them some credit for that. And honestly, wasn't the star quarterback getting paralyzed pretty soap opera-ish last year too? I mean that's pretty far fetched and kind of a ridiculous way to start the season, but somehow they made that work so I'm sure they will make this work too.

Anyway, I'm still excited about Friday. And even though there has been a lot of talk about bad ratings, I see FNL advertised throughout TV guide every week, so the critics are definitely still watching and praising. I have a feeling everyone's tune will change by week 5 or 6 when we return to our loving FNL statuses again.

I know I wasn't. After I bought the DVD I had to watch about 5 episodes to really get into the show. After that though I was hooked

Wow, MSG12, you said that very well! I just finished reading the thread about how disappointed everyone is in the first two episodes, and I was certainly agreeing with most of the posts. But your points here make sense, and have really lifted my spirits. At least your points about the storylines. I love LOVE this show, and I'd really like to think the writers/directors/actors that brought us the great first season are still on track.

As for the ratings woes, however... I'd hate to see this show (and its loyal fans) treated the same way Studio 60 was last year. But, of course, we already seem to have a lot in common. Intelligent show with great writing and acting; too little promotion by NBC; perception problems as to what the show is really about. Now there is apparently the possibility of FNL moving to Monday nights after Heroes (Studio 60's old time slot)?

I don't really care when it's on. I'll watch it.

Texas forever!

I think the differcen is Studoi 60 was a BAD show. But the promoed it SO hard that it had a following that wantd to see a conclusion and they provided that. The same may happen with FNL but in this case it is a critically accliamed show. Honestly, I thin the show is in trouble. I do not see it getting a season 3. My hope is that the cult like status of the show, the critical acclaim, and the "lower expectations" for a Friday night show will allow us to get a full season 2. I think a move to MOnday would be good and bad. As a lead in to Heroes, clearyl we'd see a significant ratings jump. However, there would also be a higher exopectation to KEEP a high rating and I am just not sure that is soemthing this show could pull off.

As to the story lines...the very stuiff that made us love season 1 is the catalyst for what we have gotten so far in season 2. But I have full faith in these writers that by episode 4 or 5, I will be just as sucked into the show as I was last season.

Just wondering if anyone knew how the show was doing (ratings wise) thus far this season. This is my favorite show, but I never hear how it is doing. Was it even picked up for a full second season? I was disappointed with this seasons first 2 episodes, but episode 3 was like coming home again. It feels like the FNL we know and love again. Also, it seems like once again NBC is dropping the ball on promoting this jem in primetime. If I see another Hero's, Deal or No Deal, or Journeyman ad I'm going to lose it. Do they ever promote this? Am I just missing it? Thanks for the info!!!!

Wikipedia is a good source for finding the ratings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_Night_...U.S._Ratings%29

As far as anyone knows, it has been scheduled for the whole season. There are rumors that it is being moved to Monday nights after Heroes but that's in another thread.

I dunno 'bout terrifying, but it tells us pretty much everything we need to know about our species.


I must agree, on both counts.

I COMPLETELY disagree. I will be p¡ssed at NBC for years for not giving that show a chance to find its footing. S60 was a GREAT show.

MUCH better than your typing.

/off-topic

LOL!!! My typing does suck! Too many typos and too lazy to proof!!! Bad combo.

I have to say, I WANTED to like Studio 60...I really did. I loved Matt Perry, Brad Whitford, Steven Webber, etc. I loved Sorkin and West Wing (despite him making it into a pro liberal/anti conservative sounding board). I thought Amanda Peat was HOT!!! But to say NBC "gave up" on it is inaccurate (they pushed that show more then ANY other at the beginning of last season and kept wiht it a lot longer then they should have) and IMO the show was not very funny and totally unrealistic. For example...

- Why would Amanda Peat, as president of a TV network, be spending SO much time and effort on the equivalent of Saturday Night Live? Her relationship with Whitford was equally unrealistic.

- Another major problem was the "show within the show", whihc was suppossed to be a comedy show...was never funny!

- They tried to create "drama" out of nothing. The West Wing could create drama since it dealt with important world events...this show dealt with the production of a late night comedy show. Who cares???

- Sorkin's writing got far to hard to follow. The dialogue style in the West Wing didnt translate well into Studio 60.

Bottom line, the show had potential and a good cast but it just wasn't a very good show. If it were, it wuld have been kept because NBC did EVERYTHING they cuold to keep it on.

I don't want to get too far off topic here (my fault for bringing up Studio 60!), but I'm with jfrancis on this. MSG12, your comment that Studio 60 wasn't funny only makes the point. It wasn't supposed to be funny. It wasn't a comedy show, it was a drama "about" a comedy show - the same way FNL isn't a football show but is a drama "about" football. The real story is the characters. And it was a very well written, intelligent show.

I do think NBC tried to stick with it - probably due to respect for Sorkin, and the early critical raves - but they could have done more to promote the program as "dramatic" and intelligent television. So much of the viewing public perceived it much like 30 Rock, and expected it to be funny. I think if more people knew it was a smart drama, it would have found a larger audience.

(Agreed, though, that some of it was unrealistic. Whitford's relationship with Peet, for example. But some of this was due, I think, to the fact that Sorkin was trying to wrap everything up so fast once it was clear that the program was in trouble. He was trying to finish the story arc in only one season, when he had planned for it to unfold over several.)

Which brings me back to FNL and its ratings. I am glad to see NBC sticking with this program (which, as I understand it, has ratings far lower than Studio 60's were, but is less expensive to make) for now. I do hope the network will do more to promote the program differently, so that people don't mistake it as a show just for football fans or high school kids.

My bad for not being clearer.

I understand fully that it wasnt a comedy. My point was it was suppossed to be a show about these two genius comedy writers...yet the "show WITHIN the show" (aka- the comedy skits) were NEVER funny. Thus, my problem with the overall realism of the show (amongst other things)

To me the problem with the show as a whole (aside for the far too many unrealistic aspects of it) was that the storylines bored me. As I said, in the West Wing, stroylines were built around world events. In FNL, sotrylines are built around the different daily experiences of the different characters. On Studio 60, the storylines were built around either 1) the comedy show and getting it written (Yawn), 2) Unrealistic or annoying love interest stories (Perry, Witford/Peet), 3) over the top plots (terrorist kidnappings of a cast members borther???), or 4) Network turmoil (yawn II). They tried to force drama in a genre and setting where there really was none.

What I love about FNL is its realism. Realism was one of the biggest things MISSING from S60. I mean the idea that a netowrk would care SO much about a late night comedy show or think that said show was priority 1 in the newtworks survival/revival was ridiculous. Combine that with hard to follow dialogue, Sorkins obvious political agendas, and forced drama and you can understand why it didnt last more then 1 season. I wanted to like it. I watched it for 8 weeks but just felt it was a poor show albeit wiht a great cast and creator. But hey...even Steven Bocho (LA Law, Hill Street Blues) made that clunker "Cop Rock" once upon a time!!!!

As to FNL, S60 never got the critical acclaim or the passionate cult follwing FNL had in season 1 whihc is why FNL is still on and S60 is not. But if FNLs rating dont move up, while we may salvage a full season, it wil also be the last.

At least NBC is bringing SCRUBS back for a final season (though only 18 episodes...) and they also brought back 30 Rock, which is one of the finest, funiest shows on television.

If they give up on FNL though, I'll be pretty annoyed.

yup that will be messed up.....

You do realize that most Saturday Night Live sketches really aren't that funny either, right? But yeah, the sketches shown on the air, with a few exceptions, weren't very funny. So? That's part of suspension of disbelief (plus, they weren't really much worse than the Saturday Night Live's).

If you were to watch FNL's football scenes closely you'd see that the players aren't playing as well as top high school football players. It's easier to hide that, as the opposition plays only as well as the script calls for, but we know that the actors on FNL aren't really football players and that Sorkin isn't a sketch comedy writer. It's part of what we accept in either show.



S60's storylines were built upon the daily experiences of the characters too, to a large degree.



1, 2, and 4 were the daily experiences of the characters. I personally loved the network turmoil part of the show and whatever the reason it got shoved aside by mid to late season I wish it hadn't been. #3 only occurred when Sorkin knew that the show was being cancelled and he wanted to get a lot of the best stuff he'd planned for several seasons into the last few episodes.



FNL was more realistic, but that's a lot of what makes FNL the very good show that it is, that (outside of this year's manslaughter plot) it's about as realistic as one gets on TV. S60 was not a particularly unrealistic show. It looks unrealistic compared to FNL, but so does almost everything else due to the excellent realism of FNL. S60 had about as great an ensemble of characters as I've ever seen anywhere. That was where it excelled.



That was a flaw, I'll grant you. But it was something one had to get past to enjoy the show. All shows require some suspension of disbelief. S60 didn't require more than most.



As far as a passionate cult following, S60 most definitely had it. It didn't have the same level of critical acclaim as FNL, and Zucker just plain hated it because its theme was to be critical of how networks operate. That's why it's gone.

As far as FNL's future, it's the only show on NBC I still watch, and I'd like to see it have a long future. I'm not optimistic, though. It's in a time slot that NBC had to know would kill its ratings. Not only do fewer people watch TV on Friday nights, but the people most likely to tune in, the ones that follow the real high school football games, are at those games when it's on!

Someone suggested way back then that they moved it where they did so it would be in a "low pressure" slot, where NBC wasn't going to get great ratings anyway but FNL's cult following would be sure to watch, and with an inexpensive but prestigious show, NBC would accept the poor ratings. That may have been Reilly's intent, but now Reilly's gone and Silverman is in, and he says he wants shows that take people to "that happy place," which means he won't have much use for a realistic, and by realistic therefore also dark, drama, like FNL.

It deserves a long run, as did S60. S60 only got one season. I hope FNL gets more than two, but I wouldn't bet on it. And it will, as with S60, be NBC's fault.

I am so scared they will cancel this show. I just realized that this is the only show I watch on NBC period.

Does anyone know if the ratings have picked up since the last season? I know it is lagging behing other shows in it's time slot but as long as the ratings itself is high enough they should keep it on the air. Right? I just started watching this season after I saw Kyle on the Emmy's and hopefully the show has more viewers this season as well.

By the way, I think this show should be on a Monday night since few people are in on Friday at 9 to watch tv (although I have just to watch Kyle...)

There are a couple of great threads out there that answer both of your questions - ratings, and Monday nights. Take a few seconds and you'll see what a lot of others are already saying about these topics

I think you make some very good points and as far as many of them go...to each his own. I didnt particularly like the show. It bored me.

The only place I will disagree with you is about comparing it to FNL and the realism.

S60 was mocked by a lot of critics as the season progressed whereas FNL was given universal acclaim from its beginnig to end. I never saw many "save S60" articles or anyone saying S60 should be nominated for Emmy's like they did with FNL. There may have been a following for the show, but the ratings and acclaim did not match whihc is more why S60 was cancelled. It was far too expensive (with its name cast) to produce and not be a hit...whihc it was not. NBC knew what it was getting into wiht Sorkin so I highly doubt it was cancelled because it was critical of netowrks.

As to the realism, yes, FNL is not totally realistic either BUT I happen to find Sat Night Live pretty funny these days and the "skits" that were written for S60 were not even close to SNL. That said, these guys were suppossed to be the best of the best in comedy writing...yet their writing was not very funny. I had an issue wiht that. It wouod be like Coach taylor being a bad game day strategist or Matt Saracin not being able to throw deep. To me, it undemined a lot of what I was looking for in that show. That and some of the ridiculous story lines they tried to push.

As to FNL, sadly, I agree with you. I think it WAS put on Fridays to give NBC a reason to keep it on despite the poor ratings but I also think they only did that at first because Riley loved the show and later because people would have KILLED Silverman if he cancelled it after it was announced it would be back.

But I agree...enjoy Season 2 because its probably the last.

Couple of points:

1.) Wow, you guys have Deal or No Deal on a Friday night!?! We get it everyday at 5.30pm right before the news

2.) How are your ratings calculated? I think we have 3000 homes (?) in TOTAL across Australia with a ratings box - completely unreliable source of what's popular in my opinion. I mean, I guess it gives a good general indication - but if not 1 of those homes likes a particular TV genre then there is none of it on our screens at a decent time.

I was trying to figure how to phrase my reply to this because I don't want my defense of S60 to look like I'm cutting down FNL, because I'm not. I wanted them both to survive, and as sad as I am that S60 didn't, I'm glad that FNL did.

But, this particular quote: Coach Taylor looks like a great game day strategist because the results are scripted, and that's the only reason. A lot of the things that work for him wouldn't usually work in real life. I think it was in the championship game, although maybe a game before it (definitely in the playoffs, as Jason was on the coaching staff), that there are about 7 seconds to go and Dillon needs a TD to win, with the ball on the other team's 35 or thereabouts.

Mac suggests a Hail Mary. Jason suggests what I would have, that there are really two plays left, and that Matt should throw a 15 yard out and then have a shot at a more "normal" length pass to the end zone if he completes it (and still the Hail Mary if it's incomplete; of course the risk is completing it but staying in bounds). Matt wants to do a hook and ladder, and that's what Taylor opts for; and it works.

Now, of course, in real life, any of those are long shots, but Mac and Jason both had ideas with better chances to work.

I accept it, and enjoyed the scene and enjoy the series a lot anyway; but, it's easy to make Taylor look like a top coach because the writers can script the result. The most realistic good football strategy in the show was when Matt noticed from game films that an opponent's safeties dropped too deep against 3-wide formations, meaning that they were vulnerable to slants; but that was Matt doing good strategy.

So anyway, Taylor's a great game day strategist because it's written that way. If you accept that he is because his plays work whether or not they should, you have to accept that Matt Albie of S60 was a great sketch writer because the studio audiences laughed. I can accept both, and on top of that I didn't find the sketches on S60 as bad as you did. They had a couple of pretty awful ones (one of which wasted a lot of screen time in "The Long Lead Story"), but then "Jesus as Head of Standards and Practices" and the parody of Deal or No Deal with Howie Mandel stood out as clever sketches to me.

I think at bottom, you just aren't that interested in behind the scenes network activity and the lives of people involved in it, and that's more of what killed S60 for you. And that's fine. I'm not interested in forensic crime solving techniques, so the CSI shows don't interest me; but I won't call them bad because their topic doesn't interest me. We both are interested in the lives of people involved in Texas high school football, so we both enjoy FNL. Now that The Sopranos is on basic cable, a lot of people tell me I should watch it; and I may, but I think I'd find it hard to empathize with mobsters, which is why I haven't-- but again, it's the subject, not the quality of the show.

There are a lot of bad shows on television, but the four in the above paragraph are/were all very good treatments of their topics. I'm interested in the topics of FNL and S60, and thus love(d) them. I'm not so interested in the others' topics, so I don't.

And if you judge by the depth of fan support (different from sheer numbers and likely a better gauge of quality), S60 had as dedicated of fans as any show on the air now. If you want to get into money raised to try to save it and the like, well, I don't want to make this post ultra-long. FNL was more universally critically acclaimed, but S60's reviews were very good overall until some of the herd turned on the show after it focused more on romances to try to boost ratings.

They were (or are, in the case of FNL) both great shows that perhaps are both focused on subjects with probably less universal appeal than some others. That's where I stand.

Again...all valid points. And perhaps my branding S60 a "bad show" was a bit too harsh. No Sorkin show can really be "bad". IMO, it was a very FLAWED show and I think a lot of critics and viewers agreed. With that writer/creator and that cast, the show should have been a hit (NBC even promoed it to be their next hit)...yet it wasn't. The question is why. I believe many felt as I did...story lines werent intersting enough or were too over the top, character development was somewhat unrealistic (I think we agree that a network president would NEVER be so conceredn about a late night comedy show), and yes, the idea that these genius comedy writers were simply not very funny in the skits they produced. The show had potential but it never got the critical acclaim it had hoped for nor did it get near what FNL got. That, combined with meger ratings and a VERY expensive "name" cast was why the plug got pulled....not because it tweaked the newtworks.

As to FNL, I'm not sure your comparison is apples to apples but I do understand your point. I guess the point I was trying to make was that in FNL, I felt like the characters were very real...I never felt that way about S60. Maybe I never got passed Matt Perry being Chandler, or Steve Weber playing it serious after Wings, or Bard Whitford going from White House to rehab or Amanda Peet as a network president was ridiculous to me (A Meryll Streep/Glenn Close type would have been more realistic...even a Kyra Sedgwick. Amanada Peet, while very hot, just never did it for me in that role).

But even though I wanted to like the show, I left it after about 8 episodes. It just bored me and I think many felt the same way as the audiences tailed WAY off as the season progressed. But iike I said, to each his own. I loved The Book of Daniel (all 3 episodes before NBC pulled it under pressure) and thought Brothers and Sisters was lousy...so what do I know????

Yeah, Anonym, what he said...

Truly, I think this is a great discussion. Anonym and MSG12 are obviously both intelligent and well-spoken. Both recognize the quality in Friday Night Lights - the realism, the acting, the human emotion - and are looking for said quality in their television viewing choices. Yet they clearly have different takes on another program.

In my case, I agree more with Anonym, as I feel that Studio 60 was a great program. And I disagree with MSG12's point that the reason people didn't watch was that the show was implausible. To some degree, nearly all entertainment requires a "willing suspension of disbelief". There are certain things, parts of a premise, that one just has to accept in order to be drawn into a story. In FNL, we just accept that Taylor is a great coach, that Tami is a great counselor, because it is important to the story that they are such. Studio 60 required us to accept that Matt was a great comedy writer, and I was willing to. Even when I didn't laugh at the sketches, or even when they didn't show the sketches. (And maybe that should have been their strategy more often?)

I think Studio 60 failed to gain a larger audience not because it wasn't funny, but because the general viewing audience expected it to be funny and it wasn't. (I see a nuance here, and I hope I am explaining it properly.) It was originally promoted as a light-hearted program - if not an outright comedy - and was often lumped together with 30 Rock, a comedy, in articles about the new TV season. It was "about" a comedy show, so people expected it to be funny. It failed because it was a drama - at times silly, but mostly a pretty serious drama - when everything about the show's setting screamed "comedy".

My husband and I are not TV junkies, but for many years have enjoyed watching quality programs together. (Going back to LA Law in college, but including ER, NYPD Blue, X-Files, Law & Order.) I was hooked on Studio 60 from the beginning, but could not get him to watch it. Anytime he'd sit down and watch a few minutes, he'd get up again saying "This is just not funny." There is nothing wrong with a program not being funny, unless of course the audience is expecting it to be.

(I read somewhere that Peter Krause - star of Sorkin's "SportsNight" and "Six Feet Under" - said that Studio 60 didn't work because it was set at a comedy show. That it would have succeeded if the setting were a news program, because that would have given the dramatic stories more weight and because viewers wouldn't have the expectation of the program always being funny. I think he's right.)

I think Sorkin was trying to do some interesting things, particularly exploring the notion of entertainment in a post-9/11 America. But mostly, I thought the show - like all great shows, in my opinion - was about some interesting characters, and the way they each try to make their way in life. Try to make connections with each other.

For me, FNL is the same thing. Though I enjoy watching football occasionally and following my favorite college team, I am not really all that interested in football. I am many, many years past high school, and am not especially interested in being a voyeur in the lives of high school kids. I didn't grow up in a small blue collar town, nor do I live in one now, so that's not the attraction for me either. The attraction of FNL is the universal humanity of the characters. The way they try and make their way through life. They struggle to figure out how to connect with each other, how to do the right thing, how to love and be loved. The humanity of the characters is what is great about FNL, and I thought Studio 60 had that too.

Like Anonym, I was very sad to see Studio 60 go, and I will be very sad if FNL doesn't make it. I understand that FNL is much less expensive to produce than Studio 60 was, so I am hopeful that NBC will keep it on the air even with its low ratings. I think networks need to recognize the value in sticking with quality programs - some of them, if not all of them - even when they don't help turn a profit.

I think you make 2 very good points that help explain S60s demise...

1. I do think many thought it was going to be a much more comedic show. It was lumped with 30R as being one of "two new NBC shows about a comedy series". And when you headline a character whose resume is being one of the funnier characters on a sitcom that ran for 11 years, you do expect some comedy. So perhaps NBC marketed it poorly and made too many veiwers think it was suppossed to be funnier. perhaas if it were set as a news show, as suggested, it would have done better.

2. I think you hit the nail on the head when you discussed the characters. I simply didn't connect with any of them and I think many people felt the same way I did. I found Perry's character annoying, I found Whitford's character boring, I found Webber's character ridiculous, and I found Peet's character 100% non believeable. I simply had no interest in any of them unlike FNL where I have interest in just about ALL of them. Combine that with what I felt were boring storylines and you can see why the show lost me.

While I think you took my "implausable" point to an extreme (I don't really think the show was "implausable") I did find aspects of the show much less "realistic" then say FNL. Again, the idea that a network would put so much time, effort and concern into the equivalent of saturday Night Live made no sense. And, I have to say it again, when there is a show about 2 genius comdey writers, and when those writers pen skit and those skits (when aired) for the most part were REALLY not funny...that bothers me. Plus, Sorkins whole "very quick banter" style of dialogue is an acquired taste and whereas it worked for me in the WW, it did not in S60.

It wasnt a bad show per se...but it was far from a great show. It had serious potential, but for many reasons, it just didnt work for a lot of people. That combined wiht an expensive cast was its doom.

I'm becoming increasingly terrified that we might lose the best show on television due to not-so-great ratings. I'm trying to hold out some hope but I am so scared of what NBC plans to do with the show if the strike continues. Hopefully they don't use the strike as an excuse to drop FNL because that would leave alot of us loyal viewers absolutely devastated There has to be something we can all do to let NBC know that we won't give up FNL without a fight.

If they use the strike to drop FNL they can use the strike to dump all of the junk they have on now. I don't think the show will be dropped. The show gets better each week. They can use the time to replay the show and advertise it to more people. The actors can go on talk shows and talk about the show and plug the future episodes. I think that this will help the ratings and pull in new viewers. It is just hard to get a show to have ratings that are high when it is up against "stupid" and "silly" tv. Americans do not like to think and they do not like the idea of investing in characters. It takes time. It really has to get some "buzz". Maybe the actors are just too clean and someone needs to do something "bad" to get people to watch! I really don't want any of them to do something "bad" because people have a habit of putting real life and tv life in the same boat!

Here are the 11/09/2007 ratings for Friday Night Lights according to Wikipedia (source: Zap2it)

Ratings for How Did I Get Here?

i don't even know what to think anymore in regards to ratings.

I don't understand why more people aren't watching this show? It's simply great and one of the few awesome programs currently on TV!

I've never been able to understand it, Kelly. I do think the first few episodes of this season were pretty dark, even by FNL standards, between the murder plot and Tami's PPD, and so people who might have tuned in based on glowing accolades from last year might have wondered what all the fuss was about, but the last three episodes have been SO GREAT, a return to what I remembered and looooooooved about the first season, with the subtle and realistic look at marriage, the humor, the bird's eye view on everything from young love to male friendship.

The show seems to have a small, vocal, devoted, consistent following. I hope that, along with its continued bolstering among media critics, will help it ride out the strike.

Ok, I must point out to you that this series is loosely based on the film starring Billy Bob Thorton as the Panther's Coach and Connie Britton is the ONLY cast member who was in the film of the same name. She also played the Coach's wife in the movie. The movie was based on a True story, though the team and characters are ficticious. All that said, I Love this series, even though it's getting a bit too soapy. The program is Suppose to revolve around high school football, it's the focal point of the entire series. It's just that the series goes deeper into the kid's lives and that is what is so compelling about the program. In another thread it was said that the NBC suits are intervening with the plots aka the Landry/Tyra storyline. It's drama though and they wanted to do something to actract the viewers who thrive on BS violence aka CSI crap! If we wanted that sort of junk, don't it go without saying that we would just watch that stuff? What was so appealing about season 1 was that it was fresh, something different. Now the Suits at NBC are mucking it all up!! That's Mucking.. Not F...g! But it's the same thing. That said, I still like what's going on. Here's something to think about regarding the Landry story. Now his dad just burned up the wagon right? See if anyone questions Landry as to where that car is that he's been driving since last season? Curious to see if anyone notices. And won't his dad's coworkers ask questions like, "hey, where's that old station wagon you had?" Would they be curious as to why all of a sudden he decided to get rid of it now instead of way back when? Someone's bound to add it all up. I like the guy who plays his dad. He plays a CIA agent in 24 too. I say the show's a keeper. Critics be damned! I'm gonna keep watching.

I totally agree, and I don't even have children. But I agree with what you are saying. This show was, and I say WAS, dealing with topics kids today could relate to, even parents. The writing has gone astray. How many kids in high school out there honestly are dealing with a hidden homicide? Few to none probably. Now the seperated parents due to career choices along with children that become a bit of a problem for the single parent, and stuff like that... the drinking student.. the all cocky athlete trying to get noticed for a potential College scholorship, and so on... these are surely things that high school kids today can relate to. This show started out on Wednesdays, then they moved it to Tuesdays, I think where it's at now is a good fit. For those attending their own HS games, that's what VCRs and DVRs are for. That and TiVo, right?