MO
Well, I did say 'partly true', but I will gracefully accept your point.
On the one hand, yes. How could they elect some a strikingly unintelligent leader.
On the other hand, his election was partly due to a failing of the American electoral system.
That he was even close enough in the race to have won by an electoral failing is amazing.
I've always assumed this is less to do with stupidity and more to do with arrogance (or at least self-centredness). There are a lot of places in the US with names the same as towns and cities in the UK and the rest of Europe and I think they would assume that without the country added, the speaker was talking about a place in the US.
They should add the state in that case. The place which was named first should be the default. As you say, a sign of their arrogance - or is that being stereotypical!!!?
Neil Green posted:
Moz posted:
You say I shouldn't use a stereotype and then accept another one.
Well, I did say 'partly true', but I will gracefully accept your point.
Quote:
Of course not all Americans are stupid, but any country which elected George W Bush has to have some serious questions asked about it!
On the one hand, yes. How could they elect some a strikingly unintelligent leader.
On the other hand, his election was partly due to a failing of the American electoral system.
That he was even close enough in the race to have won by an electoral failing is amazing.
Quote:
Quote:
I can't say that Americans are stupid, but I can say that on the whole they
appear
to be very ignorant - especially of anything which goes on beyond their shores. The way they say 'Paris, France' is typical. There's not need to say Paris is in France, it's obvious!
I've always assumed this is less to do with stupidity and more to do with arrogance (or at least self-centredness). There are a lot of places in the US with names the same as towns and cities in the UK and the rest of Europe and I think they would assume that without the country added, the speaker was talking about a place in the US.
They should add the state in that case. The place which was named first should be the default. As you say, a sign of their arrogance - or is that being stereotypical!!!?
NE
Oh dear god! Why is it as soon as any Britain vs America-type threads come along we descend into stereotypes.
One of the reasons why Friends has lower viewing figures over here is that it's not on BBC1 or ITV1, which always catch the higher viewing figures. I'll admit to not knowing how it compares to viewing figures for British comedy on C4, but I wouldn't be surprised if it held its own quite well.
Like most programmes it's had its highs and its lows - it certainly hasn't just been a downward journey.
chrisb posted:
We Brits are slightly more intelligent ...
Oh dear god! Why is it as soon as any Britain vs America-type threads come along we descend into stereotypes.
chrisb posted:
We Brits are slightly more intelligent, which is why the viewing figures for programmes like Friends are lower than original British comedy.
Quote:
Even the most enthusiastic fan of Friends will admit it has declined as the series have progressed.
Like most programmes it's had its highs and its lows - it certainly hasn't just been a downward journey.
Last edited by Neil__ on 4 June 2004 3:43pm
NE
And I'm not going to argue with you on that one, Moz.
I guess if we call it 'cultural arrogance' or 'cultural self-centredness' we can get away with it not being a stereotype!
Moz posted:
That he was even close enough in the race to have won by an electoral failing is amazing.
And I'm not going to argue with you on that one, Moz.
Quote:
They should add the state in that case. The place which was named first should be the default. As you say, a sign of their arrogance - or is that being stereotypical!!!?
I guess if we call it 'cultural arrogance' or 'cultural self-centredness' we can get away with it not being a stereotype!
:-(
A former member
We Brits are slightly more intelligent, which is why the viewing figures for programmes like Friends are lower than original British comedy
So that's why the final episode scored 8.5 million viewers for C4 on May 28th, destroying all other channels? The closest competitor was ITV1, with 4.1 million for the same timeslot. BBC-1 had 2.8 million for Lenny Henry (so much for original British comedy, eh?)
FWIW, Friends has been the single most important programme for C4. Its normal audience isn't huge in terms of sheer numbers, but the value is in the demographic; Friends, like nearly all of the good American comedy and drama, pulls a larger number of ABC1s - the upmarket, intelligent, educated audience that advertisers most want to reach but which is most difficult to hook with TV programmes - than most British-made programming.
Sorry to have to tell you this, chrisb, but the intelligent, educated British audience generally prefers good American programming.
Even the most enthusiastic fan of Friends will admit it has declined as the series have progressed
So what? Name *any* long-running series that got *better* with every passing year. As has been pointed out, it had peaks and troughs, just like any programme.
So that's why the final episode scored 8.5 million viewers for C4 on May 28th, destroying all other channels? The closest competitor was ITV1, with 4.1 million for the same timeslot. BBC-1 had 2.8 million for Lenny Henry (so much for original British comedy, eh?)
FWIW, Friends has been the single most important programme for C4. Its normal audience isn't huge in terms of sheer numbers, but the value is in the demographic; Friends, like nearly all of the good American comedy and drama, pulls a larger number of ABC1s - the upmarket, intelligent, educated audience that advertisers most want to reach but which is most difficult to hook with TV programmes - than most British-made programming.
Sorry to have to tell you this, chrisb, but the intelligent, educated British audience generally prefers good American programming.
Even the most enthusiastic fan of Friends will admit it has declined as the series have progressed
So what? Name *any* long-running series that got *better* with every passing year. As has been pointed out, it had peaks and troughs, just like any programme.
:-(
A former member
Anything can gain high ratings with a lot of hype
Utter nonsense. Hype can make people watch the first five minutes of a programme, but it won't make them stay if they don't like it.
But for the "last ever episode of America's best programme which is the only thing that is on Channel 4 nowadays" you would think it would achieve slightly higher ratings
Chrisb, what the hell are you talking about? 8.5 million for C4 - a 36% share - is virtually unprecedented. These days, even BBC-1 or ITV1 would consider 8.5 million to be an excellent rating; for C4, which normally considers 4 or 5 million to be a stonkingly good rating, it's better than they could ever have hoped.
I don't think you can argue that it was hindered by the fact it was on Channel 4 - I don't think there are a massive number of people who don't watch something because it's on Channel 4
You're wrong, I'm afraid. There are still *millions* of people who don't watch something because it's on C4 (or BBC-2). Ask anyone involved in audience analysis.
The point was that we usually quit whilst we're ahead, making perhaps two or three series of strong comedy and then move on to a new show
If you're talking about non-mainstream comedy that only reaches a small niche audience, you might be right. But when it comes to the mainstream, we now have a regrettable habit of churning out painfully weak sitcoms, and some of them seem to go on forever - Last Of The Summer Wine anyone?
Utter nonsense. Hype can make people watch the first five minutes of a programme, but it won't make them stay if they don't like it.
But for the "last ever episode of America's best programme which is the only thing that is on Channel 4 nowadays" you would think it would achieve slightly higher ratings
Chrisb, what the hell are you talking about? 8.5 million for C4 - a 36% share - is virtually unprecedented. These days, even BBC-1 or ITV1 would consider 8.5 million to be an excellent rating; for C4, which normally considers 4 or 5 million to be a stonkingly good rating, it's better than they could ever have hoped.
I don't think you can argue that it was hindered by the fact it was on Channel 4 - I don't think there are a massive number of people who don't watch something because it's on Channel 4
You're wrong, I'm afraid. There are still *millions* of people who don't watch something because it's on C4 (or BBC-2). Ask anyone involved in audience analysis.
The point was that we usually quit whilst we're ahead, making perhaps two or three series of strong comedy and then move on to a new show
If you're talking about non-mainstream comedy that only reaches a small niche audience, you might be right. But when it comes to the mainstream, we now have a regrettable habit of churning out painfully weak sitcoms, and some of them seem to go on forever - Last Of The Summer Wine anyone?
:-(
A former member
Well I'm not entirely sure how long the viewers watched for
I am - I have the ratings breakdown in front of me. An unfair advantage, I admit!
I presume the 8.4million was the peak rating, not the average rating throughout the whole programme
8.5 million was the average. The peak was 9.3 million, between 21.50 and 21.55. The lowest point was 7.9 million, at 21.00.
I am - I have the ratings breakdown in front of me. An unfair advantage, I admit!
I presume the 8.4million was the peak rating, not the average rating throughout the whole programme
8.5 million was the average. The peak was 9.3 million, between 21.50 and 21.55. The lowest point was 7.9 million, at 21.00.
NE
Which sounds a little bit like sticking out your tongue and saying 'Nyer, nyer.. I didn't win on that point, but I still win overall'
1) That's your opinion - so there's no point debating it . We all have different likes.
2) Fair enough point, although somewhat away from where the thrust of this debate has gone.
3) True, but I think c@t had a fair point - it's much more the minority of such programmes over here. If you want to quote Ab Fab, it only slightly compares, as the characters are way more dysfunctional than in most American comedies I've seen (mind you, their dysfunctional nature is, of course, what makes the comedy work)
chrisb posted:
But most of my original points remain:
I don't find Friends funny.
Coronation Street/Eastenders and Friends/Frasier cannot really be compared.
We also have comedy programmes featuring rich and glamorous people.
I don't find Friends funny.
Coronation Street/Eastenders and Friends/Frasier cannot really be compared.
We also have comedy programmes featuring rich and glamorous people.
Which sounds a little bit like sticking out your tongue and saying 'Nyer, nyer.. I didn't win on that point, but I still win overall'
1) That's your opinion - so there's no point debating it . We all have different likes.
2) Fair enough point, although somewhat away from where the thrust of this debate has gone.
3) True, but I think c@t had a fair point - it's much more the minority of such programmes over here. If you want to quote Ab Fab, it only slightly compares, as the characters are way more dysfunctional than in most American comedies I've seen (mind you, their dysfunctional nature is, of course, what makes the comedy work)
:-(
A former member
Just what nursery rhyme are you getting this statement from?
I presume you didn't read the whole of my post properly, and simply saw that one line. Allow me to repeat the part that you missed :
"Friends, like nearly all of the good American comedy and drama, pulls a larger number of ABC1s - the upmarket, intelligent, educated audience that advertisers most want to reach but which is most difficult to hook with TV programmes - than most British-made programming".
If you need it explained further, I will attempt to do so : broadly speaking, the two main demographic groups are ABC1 and C2DE. Advertisers and broadcasters are most keen to target ABC1s, because they represent the upmarket, educated consumer who's got some money to spend.
However, ABC1s - *because* they are more upmarket and educated - tend to watch less television than C2DEs, and they are also much more selective about what they watch when they do choose to turn the telly on. Hence, they are much harder to reach than C2DEs (who are, by and large, happy to watch any old crap).
All programmes pick up a certain proportion of ABC1 viewers, it's the size of that proportion that's important - and good American programming (your 24s and Friends-es and West Wings and Six Feet Unders et al) tends to pull a significantly higher proportion of ABC1 viewers than British programming.
I presume you didn't read the whole of my post properly, and simply saw that one line. Allow me to repeat the part that you missed :
"Friends, like nearly all of the good American comedy and drama, pulls a larger number of ABC1s - the upmarket, intelligent, educated audience that advertisers most want to reach but which is most difficult to hook with TV programmes - than most British-made programming".
If you need it explained further, I will attempt to do so : broadly speaking, the two main demographic groups are ABC1 and C2DE. Advertisers and broadcasters are most keen to target ABC1s, because they represent the upmarket, educated consumer who's got some money to spend.
However, ABC1s - *because* they are more upmarket and educated - tend to watch less television than C2DEs, and they are also much more selective about what they watch when they do choose to turn the telly on. Hence, they are much harder to reach than C2DEs (who are, by and large, happy to watch any old crap).
All programmes pick up a certain proportion of ABC1 viewers, it's the size of that proportion that's important - and good American programming (your 24s and Friends-es and West Wings and Six Feet Unders et al) tends to pull a significantly higher proportion of ABC1 viewers than British programming.