Animavore wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Aside from the network publishing figures, the only credible means of judging viewership is Nielsen Ratings or similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_M ... TV_ratings

Far from perfect, obviously restricted to the US market, and the flaws are well known, but it still provides some means of determining the reception of a program particularly when the US is the primary market.

Today's rankings:

https://www.nielsen.com/top-ten/




"Bombed" said the path of the flight of birds across the sky.

The thing is RoP started on such a high that losing some viewership means it is still quids in. It can be true that it can lose viewership (in the small demographic that is tracked at least) and still be a success.

One the former does not preclude the latter

It's not like it's at all unusual anyway. The vast majority of shows lose viewership over time. I am sure we all know why too because we see a new show on our preferred and prepaid streaming service so we check it out, watch one or two shows to decide if it's for us, and often drop it never to return. That's basically my entire Netflix experience in one sentence.

Isn't it everyone's?

I have a general three episode rule for giving something a chance myself. Though some shows I'm in on episode one and others I don't make those three episodes.

Aha no, apparently it's because they're made by woke people following woke religion into woke woke woke... sorry, these empty edgelord memetic agitations contain zero information so I can't satisfactorily parody them.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

If She-Hulk actually did well there'd be no need for Jennifer Gao to scream and cry about the fans for its lack of success.

You've not established any metric for defining 'well' but if it's similar in formulation to your 'bombed' I am not sure how we can expect to communicate despite supposedly using the same language.

Purveyors of woke media are unusually salty about their highly successful projects:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/10/17/she-hulk-star-says-series-exists-as-a-f-k-you-to-critics-head-writer-boasts-part-of-me-really-loves-trolling-the-trolls/

Are you truly surprised that people got annoyed and started talking shit? Truly? You believe that anything approximating a nontrivial portion of the human population embraces stoicism in their lives, and wouldn't simply flip the bird to someone that's pissing them off?

You really think the fact that someone got defensive and upset is evidence of an associated project being a financial flop? Truly?

She could be making a huge deal about how well She-Hulk has truly done. Instead she's taking the lady Ghostbusters "fuck the fans" route. Sus!

Spearthrower wrote:Aha no, apparently it's because they're made by woke people following woke religion into woke woke woke... sorry, these empty edgelord memetic agitations contain zero information so I can't satisfactorily parody them.

You think the term "woke" is particular to alt-right edgelords who you still haven't named in detail?

Azaghal wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Azaghal wrote:Purveyors of woke media are unusually salty about their highly successful projects:

Sorry, you will need to speak in English to me as I don't know what you're gibbering witlessly about.

"Woke" is a pretty recently coined adjective, which is something you should get used to, because that's how language works in general.

Goodness, my oh my, I would never have known that.

Azaghal wrote: If you want things to just stay the way they were in the past,...

Which, as we all know, is exactly what I've been saying repeatedly through this thread over and over which is why you're now referring to that litany of instances of me saying I want things to stay the way they were in the past.

Oh and beautifully ironic, too. I kinda feel like you realized this as you were writing it and decided to just move on.

Azaghal wrote:and it seems like you're coming from a British English background,...

Hosiery.

Azaghal wrote: I think it's worth pointing out that Early Modern English as was spoken in, say, Shakespeare's time, was done so with an accent closer to typical US American or Canadian English of today, and then in the 19th century Brits for some reason started talking funny all of a sudden.

On that topic, I think it's worth pointing out that Q is the only letter of the alphabet not to appear in any US's state's name. Isn't that interesting, and more importantly, isn't it interesting that I knew that and said it here?

Azaghal wrote:But what does a student of linguistics know about such things?

No, no, no... please do go on telling me how important you are.

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You've not established any metric for defining 'well' but if it's similar in formulation to your 'bombed' I am not sure how we can expect to communicate despite supposedly using the same language.

Purveyors of woke media are unusually salty about their highly successful projects:

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/10/17/she-hulk-star-says-series-exists-as-a-f-k-you-to-critics-head-writer-boasts-part-of-me-really-loves-trolling-the-trolls/

Are you truly surprised that people got annoyed and started talking shit? Truly? You believe that anything approximating a nontrivial portion of the human population embraces stoicism in their lives, and wouldn't simply flip the bird to someone that's pissing them off?

You really think the fact that someone got defensive and upset is evidence of an associated project being a financial flop? Truly?

She could be making a huge deal about how well She-Hulk has truly done. Instead she's taking the lady Ghostbusters "fuck the fans" route. Sus!

First of all, I highly doubt that none of the people you're referencing have never been caught praising the work they were part of, as that's actually extremely typical behavior.

Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

Spearthrower wrote:No, no, no... please do go on telling me how important you are.

You seem to think your background in film and TV is relevant here, so I figured mine in linguistics would be too. That doesn't seem too self-important.

Anyway, I might have gotten the British English thing wrong. I've enjoyed a lot of British media over the years, like Doctor Who, The Young Ones, Warhammer 40K novels and short stories etc. and that's probably rubbed off on me to some extent but your words still seem a little strange for North American English. Feel free to fill me in here.

What's actually much more important though is the nebulous alt-right actors who have yet to be named in any real detail...

Greg the Grouper wrote:Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

The "trolls" (actual trolling requiring adopting an insincere attitude just to piss others off, whereas "this is dogshit" is actually heartfelt) should be utterly beneath notice. If the "trolls" are just random loser hambones on /pol/ there's really no need to talk about them at all. I honestly don't think that's the case.

Azaghal wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Azaghal wrote:Purveyors of woke media are unusually salty about their highly successful projects:

Sorry, you will need to speak in English to me as I don't know what you're gibbering witlessly about.

"Woke" is a pretty recently coined adjective, which is something you should get used to, because that's how any living language works in general. If you want things to just stay the way they were in the past, and it seems like you're coming from a British English background, I think it's worth pointing out that Early Modern English as was spoken in, say, Shakespeare's time, was done so with an accent closer to typical US American or Canadian English of today, and then in the 19th century Brits for some reason started talking funny all of a sudden.

But what does a student of linguistics know about such things?

Wot? Somebody flipped a switch and Brits changed their accent? All of them? And in what way?
You do know that accents are regional and formed by class, don‘t you?

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

The "trolls" (actual trolling requiring adopting an insincere attitude just to piss others off, whereas "this is dogshit" is actually heartfelt) should be utterly beneath notice. If the "trolls" are just random loser hambones on /pol/ there's really no need to talk about them at all. I honestly don't think that's the case.

And as we all know, human beings are all hyperrational robots.

Seriously, are you unaware of how stupid this sounds?

I started to reply to the latest load of manufactured bullshit and then realized who's got his hand up your arse.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

The "trolls" (actual trolling requiring adopting an insincere attitude just to piss others off, whereas "this is dogshit" is actually heartfelt) should be utterly beneath notice. If the "trolls" are just random loser hambones on /pol/ there's really no need to talk about them at all. I honestly don't think that's the case.

And as we all know, human beings are all hyperrational robots.

Seriously, are you unaware of how stupid this sounds?

I'm familiar with a huge amount of evidence that neither humans nor robots nor some kind of cyborg middle ground will ever attain perfect rationality:

• Behavioral economics and behavioral game theory!
• Addiction—I will never be addicted to anything like gambling or meth but I've struggled with alcohol
• Substantial hands-on experience with machine learning, knowing full well that computers make mistakes all the time and statistically good performance is the best we can currently expect
• Indeed, P is probably not NP in the world of algorithms, whether they are implemented in flesh and/or semiconductors, so that is probably the most we can ever expect

But I'm really not expecting perfection, am I? I'm just expecting that super successful stars of highly successful fictional media series treat apparent inconsequential piss-ants like the apparent inconsequential piss-ants that they allegedly are. Yet this is not happening.

Spearthrower wrote:I started to reply to the latest load of manufactured bullshit and then realized who's got his hand up your arse.

Oh? Will I finally get an actual name?

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:Second of all, the idea that you're reading so deeply into the success of this show based on, again, extremely typical behavior of literally anyone with some annoying twat giving them shit is pretty silly.

The "trolls" (actual trolling requiring adopting an insincere attitude just to piss others off, whereas "this is dogshit" is actually heartfelt) should be utterly beneath notice. If the "trolls" are just random loser hambones on /pol/ there's really no need to talk about them at all. I honestly don't think that's the case.

And as we all know, human beings are all hyperrational robots.

Seriously, are you unaware of how stupid this sounds?

I'm familiar with a huge amount of evidence that neither humans nor robots nor some kind of cyborg middle ground will ever attain perfect rationality:

• Behavioral economics and behavioral game theory!
• Addiction—I will never be addicted to anything like gambling or meth but I've struggled with alcohol
• Substantial hands-on experience with machine learning, knowing full well that computers make mistakes all the time and statistically good performance is the best we can currently expect
• Indeed, P is probably not NP in the world of algorithms, whether they are implemented in flesh and/or semiconductors, so that is probably the most we can ever expect

But I'm really not expecting perfection, am I? I'm just expecting that super successful stars of highly successful fictional media series treat apparent inconsequential piss-ants like the apparent inconsequential piss-ants that they allegedly are. Yet this is not happening.

You're expecting people to act like annoying bullshit isn't annoying.

Regina wrote:Wot? Somebody flipped a switch and Brits changed their accent? All of them? And in what way?

Nothing is totally homogeneous in language, but, while actors at the Globe Theatre didn't sound exactly like me, they definitely weren't speaking RP either. Here's a good rundown:



I guess the best way to explain it would be hearing JFK or Peter Griffin from Family Guy and observing "that sounds a bit silly, huh?"

Regina wrote:You do know that accents are regional and formed by class, don‘t you?

Of course, but I just don't understand why the Bard's English stopped being classy for some reason.

Greg the Grouper wrote:You're expecting people to act like annoying bullshit isn't annoying.

We're talking about celebrities in many many multi-million dollar productions here. I'll put it this way: it's easy to see famous actors charging large amounts of money for autographs as "greedy" and perhaps to some extent it is. But I thought about it and it's maybe also like the idea of congestion pricing in traffic. It would be really cool if Sigourney Weaver showed up near where I live and I could get her autograph but I might be discouraged by having to pay through the nose for it. But if no one had to pay the fee, there would be a 300-mile-long line of fans waiting, most of whom would have to go home empty-handed at the end of the night.

The point is, these are people who get tons and tons and tons of attention, wanted, maybe not ideal at the moment, or just otherwise. They can and, really, have to select what attention they respond to in any really meaningful way. As such, obsessing over "trolls" doesn't suggest that the potentially worldwide series you're involved is really doing so well.

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:You're expecting people to act like annoying bullshit isn't annoying.

We're talking about celebrities in many many multi-million dollar productions here. I'll put it this way: it's easy to see famous actors charging large amounts of money for autographs as "greedy" and perhaps to some extent it is. But I thought about it and it's maybe also like the idea of congestion pricing in traffic. It would be really cool if Sigourney Weaver showed up near where I live and I could get her autograph but I might be discouraged by having to pay through the nose for it. But if no one had to pay the fee, there would be a 300-mile-long line of fans waiting, most of whom would have to go home empty-handed at the end of the night.

The point is, these are people who get tons and tons and tons of attention, wanted, maybe not ideal at the moment, or just otherwise. They can and, really, have to select what attention they respond to in any really meaningful way. As such, obsessing over "trolls" doesn't suggest that the potentially worldwide series you're involved is really doing so well.

I like how they're obsessing over trolls because trolls are annoying and they reacted to an annoyance like literally anyone would.

Seriously, this isn't some giant conspiracy, nor is it some massive conundrum. A bunch of people were acting annoying, and actors and staff reacted out of annoyance. More predictable than taking a shit after eating.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:You're expecting people to act like annoying bullshit isn't annoying.

We're talking about celebrities in many many multi-million dollar productions here. I'll put it this way: it's easy to see famous actors charging large amounts of money for autographs as "greedy" and perhaps to some extent it is. But I thought about it and it's maybe also like the idea of congestion pricing in traffic. It would be really cool if Sigourney Weaver showed up near where I live and I could get her autograph but I might be discouraged by having to pay through the nose for it. But if no one had to pay the fee, there would be a 300-mile-long line of fans waiting, most of whom would have to go home empty-handed at the end of the night.

The point is, these are people who get tons and tons and tons of attention, wanted, maybe not ideal at the moment, or just otherwise. They can and, really, have to select what attention they respond to in any really meaningful way. As such, obsessing over "trolls" doesn't suggest that the potentially worldwide series you're involved is really doing so well.

I like how they're obsessing over trolls because trolls are annoying and they reacted to an annoyance like literally anyone would.

There are two possibilities here:

• They have a big bug up their asses about fedora-wearing alt-right KKK Nazi skinhead neckbeards stuffing chicken tendies down their gullets and just "trolling"—no, these people are not purveying dogshit; it's all just insincere "trolling"—and feel an intense need to obsess over said "trolls"
• OOOOOR the tried and failed formula of shoehorning identity politics into everything has been tried and is failing AGAIN and they need to blame a tiny cranky imagined minority for said failure

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:You're expecting people to act like annoying bullshit isn't annoying.

We're talking about celebrities in many many multi-million dollar productions here. I'll put it this way: it's easy to see famous actors charging large amounts of money for autographs as "greedy" and perhaps to some extent it is. But I thought about it and it's maybe also like the idea of congestion pricing in traffic. It would be really cool if Sigourney Weaver showed up near where I live and I could get her autograph but I might be discouraged by having to pay through the nose for it. But if no one had to pay the fee, there would be a 300-mile-long line of fans waiting, most of whom would have to go home empty-handed at the end of the night.

The point is, these are people who get tons and tons and tons of attention, wanted, maybe not ideal at the moment, or just otherwise. They can and, really, have to select what attention they respond to in any really meaningful way. As such, obsessing over "trolls" doesn't suggest that the potentially worldwide series you're involved is really doing so well.

I like how they're obsessing over trolls because trolls are annoying and they reacted to an annoyance like literally anyone would.

There are two possibilities here:

• They have a big bug up their asses about fedora-wearing alt-right KKK Nazi skinhead neckbeards stuffing chicken tendies down their gullets and just "trolling"—no, these people are not purveying dogshit; it's all just insincere "trolling"—and feel an intense need to obsess over said "trolls"
• OOOOOR the tried and failed formula of shoehorning identity politics into everything has been tried and is failing AGAIN and they need to blame a tiny cranky imagined minority for said failure

Surely it couldn't be that a bunch of people were being annoying, and they got annoyed as a result!

Look, I gotta go to sleep, alright? Try not to delve too far into this frankly stupid conspiracism.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Azaghal wrote:

We're talking about celebrities in many many multi-million dollar productions here. I'll put it this way: it's easy to see famous actors charging large amounts of money for autographs as "greedy" and perhaps to some extent it is. But I thought about it and it's maybe also like the idea of congestion pricing in traffic. It would be really cool if Sigourney Weaver showed up near where I live and I could get her autograph but I might be discouraged by having to pay through the nose for it. But if no one had to pay the fee, there would be a 300-mile-long line of fans waiting, most of whom would have to go home empty-handed at the end of the night.

The point is, these are people who get tons and tons and tons of attention, wanted, maybe not ideal at the moment, or just otherwise. They can and, really, have to select what attention they respond to in any really meaningful way. As such, obsessing over "trolls" doesn't suggest that the potentially worldwide series you're involved is really doing so well.

I like how they're obsessing over trolls because trolls are annoying and they reacted to an annoyance like literally anyone would.

There are two possibilities here:

• They have a big bug up their asses about fedora-wearing alt-right KKK Nazi skinhead neckbeards stuffing chicken tendies down their gullets and just "trolling"—no, these people are not purveying dogshit; it's all just insincere "trolling"—and feel an intense need to obsess over said "trolls"
• OOOOOR the tried and failed formula of shoehorning identity politics into everything has been tried and is failing AGAIN and they need to blame a tiny cranky imagined minority for said failure

Surely it couldn't be that a bunch of people were being annoying, and they got annoyed as a result!

Look, I gotta go to sleep, alright? Try not to delve too far into this frankly stupid conspiracism.

Tuning out of any dogshit show, not least because "fuck the fans" is typical in such circumstances, doesn't require some elaborate conspiracy to come to fruition.

Greg the Grouper wrote:
Surely it couldn't be that a bunch of people were being annoying, and they got annoyed as a result!

Look, I gotta go to sleep, alright? Try not to delve too far into this frankly stupid conspiracism.

Look... some people are upset, ok, so you need to know about it and validate their feelies! Oh and that fucking woke mob, amirite?