Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

cboath said:

The break is so there aren't repeats. First half was 10 eps in 10 weeks second half is the same (give or take).

As for shows not having new eps every week - been that way for years. We're down to 20-24 eps a season for a show - TV 'season' itself is mid September to mid May - around 32 weeks. Gotta fill it somehow. The other option would be more country music awards shows, and they're waaaay past their limit as it is now

Click to expand...

There's also this thing called Sweeps, networks like to time things so that what they consider the best episode of the season for their shows air during Sweeps in order to garner the best ratings they can during this big week. As I understand it, Sweeps is related to advertising on the networks and how much they can charge so a show doing well during Sweeps means that they can get more morning from advertisers to air commercials during the time the show is on.

Sweeps are the months of November, February, and May. They're used for setting ad rates for the coming quarter/year/etc. It's why there's typically nothing but test shows and reurns in March

That's why it was surprising to me they had Agent Carter running through February - sweeps months. And it was planned out that way before it aired a single episode. I thought that was odd.

Again, it all ties to the movies. Marvel knows at this point they can afford to take risks, because just about everything they put out turns to gold.

December also has a lot of holiday specials which may either preempt shows, cause people to watch other shows, or air at different times in different time zones, which means some people may get stuff and others may not. And then you have all of the college bowl games during the holidays. It makes more sense to have a set start/stop for the fall and spring halves of a season. I remember, back before they did this, the "oh, is it a new episode this week? Drat, no, rerun. Wait, it was a new episode last week?! CRAP!".

What I really like, too, is that at least ABC is starting to do these special events, like Agent Carter or Gallavant (I thought it was fun, at least).

Laspector said:

What ever happened to tv shows that had a full season? The season started and it ran every week until the season was done. I get tired of all this-it's on this week, it's not on next week, it takes a break for weeks at a time then comes back......crap, just play the whole damn season!!

Click to expand...

I'm with you 1000%, man. I hate the way seasons for most shows are played out these days. I'd rather see a 13 straight weeks run like Sons of Anarchy, Justified, etc. than the way networks continuously stop and start their shows. They have 2 new episodes, then off for 3 weeks, come back for 3 episodes, take a month off, etc. It's really irritating and you lose any momentum a show may have built up. Case in point, I'm way more into Agent Carter now than I've been with SHIELD this season because it's been on every damn week....and there's also the fact that Hayley Atwell is just awesome. :cool

I know!! I've practically forgotten everything that even happened in the last couple of episodes of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Brent M said:

I'm with you 1000%, man. I hate the way seasons for most shows are played out these days. I'd rather see a 13 straight weeks run like Sons of Anarchy, Justified, etc. than the way networks continuously stop and start their shows. They have 2 new episodes, then off for 3 weeks, come back for 3 episodes, take a month off, etc. It's really irritating and you lose any momentum a show may have built up. Case in point, I'm way more into Agent Carter now than I've been with SHIELD this season because it's been on every damn week....and there's also the fact that Hayley Atwell is just awesome. :cool

Click to expand...

Marvel has a specific plan for AOS, as like always, it ties in with the movies, so the mid season break, and march restart will coincide with the may release of avengers 2... so the storyline will coexist in a similar timeline.

Please help me understand something.
In general American TV series take frequent mid-season breaks. Why?

When there are hundreds of channels available to the average American TV viewer, why would a network potentially risk a ratings loss by stopping their story mid flow?
Networks frequently complain that ratings drop and in many unfortunate cases this can lead to a series being cancelled. If a mid-season break's returning second half isn't properly advertised the viewer could miss out on the latter half of the season.

Without being disrespectful attention spans are not what they used to be, look at how annoying pop-ups occur during an episode encouraging you to tweet or chat live with the cast. THIS IS MADNESS. WATCH THE EPISODE not p#ss about with your mobile phone.
I see this in the cinema also, people can't leave their mobile alone for 2 hours and be engrossed in a narrative unfolding in front of them. I'm digressing from my original point but it is becoming a constant problem with a lack of attention span.

To conclude. Wouldn't it be to the benefit of a series to show a whole season in one continuous run without taking a break? I realise Marvel have certain reasons for their breaks to maintain a consistent timeline within the MCU and allow characters from the TV wing to overlap with events in the cinematic wing.

Thanks

renaissance_man said:

Please help me understand something.
In general American TV series take frequent mid-season breaks. Why?

When there are hundreds of channels available to the average American TV viewer, why would a network potentially risk a ratings loss by stopping their story mid flow?
Networks frequently complain that ratings drop and in many unfortunate cases this can lead to a series being cancelled. If a mid-season break's returning second half isn't properly advertised the viewer could miss out on the latter half of the season.

Without being disrespectful attention spans are not what they used to be, look at how annoying pop-ups occur during an episode encouraging you to tweet or chat live with the cast. THIS IS MADNESS. WATCH THE EPISODE not p#ss about with your mobile phone.
I see this in the cinema also, people can't leave their mobile alone for 2 hours and be engrossed in a narrative unfolding in front of them. I'm digressing from my original point but it is becoming a constant problem with a lack of attention span.

To conclude. Wouldn't it be to the benefit of a series to show a whole season in one continuous run without taking a break? I realise Marvel have certain reasons for their breaks to maintain a consistent timeline within the MCU and allow characters from the TV wing to overlap with events in the cinematic wing.

Thanks

Click to expand...

You would think that they would run it continuously in one stretch, and most of them used to do just that, but now there are more things to deal with in network programming. You have holiday breaks, major sporting events, schooling schedules, vacations, Election Day, single-day holidays, and a plethora of other issues to deal with. With hour-long television shows running a full season of 20-24 episodes, running them all consecutively means that you are going to overrun at least one of these events. Even with the 13-episode seasons that seem to be coming into vogue, this can still happen. In fact, I think the only show that has been able to do a week-to-week run without airing on the same day as an event is Game of Thrones, and I think that's largely because it's a ten-episode season and comes out in April. Additionally, a lot of airtime is prepurchased by companies to air specific events, such as political debates, sporting events, etc.

Ratings drops aren't really due to scheduling issues as much as they are a product of current society aiming to "cut the cord." That is to not be bound paying exorbitant amounts of money for a cable subscription service just to get a few channels to watch a show. This is a huge trend amongst young adults and is spreading to other generations as well.

If the networks want to see a ratings boost, two things need to happen:

1) Cable companies need to move away from package deals and move to an a la carte system, where you pick and choose the exact channels you want to have instead of an entire block of thirty channels just to get two. If I want AMC, I don't want to have a crapload of other channels that I will never watch.

2) The folks at Nielsen need to move away from the antiquated method of only counting television viewings at the time of the initial broadcast. Given our current society being a round-the-clock one (i.e. - many businesses are 24/7 (convenience stores, Walmart) or set to nonstandard hours (retail stores, bars)), many potential viewers are just not able to watch the show when it premiers and have to record it on DVR, watch it online, or wait for a rerun, none of which count towards ratings.

I do agree with you 100% that the annoying popups need to go.

Even moreso, the networks try to air them most during 'sweeps' periods which determine ad rates. These are November, February, and May so you have to stretch across those months as well.

Well, I actually work for a cable company and as much as it pains me to tell you, the a la carte system is never going to happen. And it is really not the cable company's fault. It is the network's fault. Networks own many different channels, they are the ones who are forcing you to get package deals. The cable companies are forced, just like you, to buy packages of channels. Without getting into the technical side of things, these channel packages are sent as package signals to the cable company, meaning we get a certain frequency and bandwidth sent to us by the networks (which by the way cost millions and millions of dollars). The cable company has no way to separate these individual channels before sending them to you. It all comes buried together in one signal. We, like you, have no choice in these package deals. If we want TNT, guess what, we must also accept (and pay for) everything else Turner Broadcasting is sending us. That is what we can offer you, no more no less.

It really irks me when people complain about "the cable companies" when you are really mad at the wrong people. Your anger really needs to be directed towards the networks. We give you what is given to us. In essence you are "shooting the messenger."

Look, I'm not saying the cable companies are angels, they aren't by no means. Everything is corporate America, everybody has blood on their hands, no one is entirely innocent, and as we know it is all about the all mighty dollar. But complaining about "the cable company" is actually incorrect thinking. It is really the networks themselves you should hold to blame.

The Mad Professor said:

If the networks want to see a ratings boost, two things need to happen:

1) Cable companies need to move away from package deals and move to an a la carte system, where you pick and choose the exact channels you want to have instead of an entire block of thirty channels just to get two. If I want AMC, I don't want to have a crapload of other channels that I will never watch.

2) The folks at Nielsen need to move away from the antiquated method of only counting television viewings at the time of the initial broadcast. Given our current society being a round-the-clock one (i.e. - many businesses are 24/7 (convenience stores, Walmart) or set to nonstandard hours (retail stores, bars)), many potential viewers are just not able to watch the show when it premiers and have to record it on DVR, watch it online, or wait for a rerun, none of which count towards ratings.

I do agree with you 100% that the annoying popups need to go.

Click to expand...

1. I don't think they're going to offer a la carte any time soon, if they did that, the majority of TV channels would just go away because nobody is willing to pay for them by themselves. If they did start to do that, not only would the number of channels drop significantly, but the revenue of the cable companies would drop as well. They don't want that.

2. I can't tell you the last time I actually watched any TV show when it was broadcast. It's been many, many years. I watch when I want to watch and I'm totally off the "grid" when it comes to having my viewing counted. I'm sure that a huge number of people out there are the same. More people watch these shows than Nielsen or any other group can possibly know.

And I've started seeing actual commercials in the pop-ups recently, I don't watch commercials, ever. If this trend continues, then my viewing of shows that use this will be severely curtailed. I know that the networks don't care, the only reason they make shows at all is to sell advertising, but they need to find a better way to do it than to cover up the entire bottom of the screen with annoying ads.

DVR recordings are figured into ratings, are they not?

Kevin Gossett said:

DVR recordings are figured into ratings, are they not?

Click to expand...

I think I read sometime somewhere that they are counted as long as they are watched within like 8 days of airing. Or something like that.

New promo run during the Oscars, teasing the Inhuman label. It's crazy that the film is four years away.

No one? Ok.

Pretty good start to second part of the season. I'm a little surprised at just the harsh visceral reaction from the team, putting Skye in a definitely bad position to fear her own team. I loved the shield and teleportation at the end, where they are clearly ramping up the power level of the show.

Kerr Avon said:

No one? Ok.

Pretty good start to second part of the season. I'm a little surprised at just the harsh visceral reaction from the team, putting Skye in a definitely bad position to fear her own team. I loved the shield and teleportation at the end, where they are clearly ramping up the power level of the show.

Click to expand...

Remember, it is (was) just beginning to air on the West coast when you posted. But, I got to ask...
But, it was a pretty solid episode. A little darker and edgier that some others. I wish it was a bit more action packed. But, I guess they need to save something for the "Avengers 2" tie-in.

Maybe Fury?

Loved the new episode.


What the hell, Simmons? I can't say that I don't understand her reasons. She was really sweet on Trip, and his death hit her right in her convictions. Only Fitz's death would have hit harder. I did like that there was no hesitation about it when it came to Raina. She just immediately opened fire on her. She could use some target practice, though...


I've a feeling that Simmons knows that Fitz switched the samples and is waiting to confront him about it.


The "bickering amongst themselves" scene was a clever callback to what happened with the Avengers on board the Helicarrier, with Skye being the Bruce Banner analog.


Just what are Bobbi and Mack up to? Spying for Talbot, maybe?


Oh, and Coulson going to inform Trip's mom... Damnit, why? I didn't need to cry today, but you just HAD to do it, didn't you?

Sif next week?