Television Civil War: Marvel TV vs DCTV

[Ghost_Rider]

If ratings are paramount in determining the quality of a season, then I do not see why season 3 is considered to be bad, as it did a good job in that regard. The reason that it is considered to be bad, of course, is because of the considerable number of fans airing their grievances online, in addition to poor reviews. That is the only possible way it could be considered a bad season then, as it performed well in terms of ratings. At this moment you will find very few people of the opinion that season 5 so far has been doing a lesser job than seasons 3 & 4. The majority of the response online has been positive, this year. I am sure you are aware of that. It has been much better than what the response was in the previous two seasons. I wouldn't say the 100th episode was the best episode to get people back on board, as it was an episode that was quite rushed and had to fit a lot in, even if it did have nice moments. It wasn't focused on Arrows main story. If Arrow maintaining its viewers in season 3 can be considered a poor season, and Arrow losing its viewers in season 2 can be considered its best season, then I do not see why season 5 can not be considered good due to its lesser ratings, if the response to it has been positive, if only so far. The only possible way that seasons 2 & 3 can be considered good and poor is by what the response was on the internet, as 3 did a better job holding on to viewers late on, yet I doubt you consider 3 better than 2.

Ratings were stable for S3 because people were turning in, in the hopes the show would improve and everything would pay off.

It wasn't till S4 began that audiences started dropping off like flies, when they realized that everything they had to sit through during S3... led to this.

Let's not forget, like I said earlier, S3 was still received quite positively up until 3b, and even during 3b... many viewers were in denial... hoping the show would get better.

The loss of viewers was a gradual process.

Audience ratings and IMDb scores could be easily manipulated. Anyone with an internet could give scores without even seeing the whole thing or a single episode.

That's not being manipulated, that's just voting without being informed. And that's a common risk of any type of voting on any level (even in politics).

That's a poor excuse to assume that such a massive amount of users polled were largely uninformed though.

Especially when ratings for other shows in the genre on the site generally reflect their reception and quality.

 

[jihado86]

Agents of SHIELD alone is better than the whole DCTV universe. So, imagine if we include Netflix shows.

 

[Slade W]

Ratings were stable for S3 because people were turning in, in the hopes the show would improve and everything would pay off.

It wasn't till S4 began that audiences started dropping off like flies, when they realized that everything they had to sit through during S3... led to this.

Let's not forget, like I said earlier, S3 was still received quite positively up until 3b, and even during 3b... many viewers were in denial... hoping the show would get better.

The loss of viewers was a gradual process.

But there is no proof of this. How can you say these were the reasons that all of these viewers were tuning in during season 3? Surely if you can speak for the whole audience, then I can say that people are not tuning in this season despite the reception online being positive because they feel that the quality will drop in the 2nd half and that by watching now they are just wasting their time. The reception online has always been the way people have determined what the consensus is on the quality of seasons are. Like I said, if rating were paramount when it comes to determining quality, the 2nd half of season 2 would have had the best ratings, but that was not the case, as they declined. I doubt many would consider Ras a better villain than Deathstroke and the latter half of season 3 better, or on a similar level, to 2.

 

[Ghost_Rider]

But there is no proof of this. How can you say these were the reasons that all of these viewers were tuning in during season 3? Surely if you can speak for the whole audience, then I can say that people are not tuning in this season despite the reception online being positive because they feel that the quality will drop in the 2nd half and that by watching now they are just wasting their time. The reception online has always been the way people have determined what the consensus is on the quality of seasons are. Like I said, if rating were paramount when it comes to determining quality, the 2nd half of season 2 would have had the best ratings, but that was not the case, as they declined. I doubt many would consider Ras a better villain than Deathstroke and the latter half of season 3 better, or on a similar level, to 2.

It's not a difficult concept. Season 2 gradually built up interest in the show.

Therefore the ratings for S3 were strong.

S3's quality declined though. And that's why S4 ratings started to sink.

 

[Slade W]

Its not a difficult concept. Season 2 gradually built up interest in the show.

Therefore the ratings for S3 were strong.

S3's quality declined though. And that's why S4 ratings started to sink.

Why did season 2 ratings drop in the latter half, when it is considered the peak of the show? The main drop in season 4rating happened after episode 15. It took a while for the ratings to sink.

 

[Dark Raven]

I generally find the DC shows more fun to watch and they embrace their comic book roots unashamedly.

With the Netflix shows, it's becoming a running joke that we have to wait until the final 20 minutes of episode 13 for the character to finally become the person we know, or for them to make even the slightest costume change.

I did enjoy DD s1 and 2, but Luke Cage and JJ were quite slow.

Agents of SHIELD has never lived up to its potential and has always seemed rather mediocre.

I do find Arrow quite tedious at times though. I've never enjoyed Olicity either. That show I only really watch because it's part of the Arrowverse, but I far prefer Flash, Supergirl and Legends.

Are we going to have a cartoon Civil War and animated movie Civil War next?

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Audience ratings and IMDb scores could be easily manipulated. Anyone with an internet could give scores without even seeing the whole thing or a single episode.

How else to explain all the 1/2 stars given to Supergirl. The lowest registerable score. Not even a meaningful comment as to why it is only a 1/2 star show. If someone can't even articulate why they think the
show it that bad, how can that 1/2 be taken seriously? And yet some people still think the audience score means anything. At least the critics give a detailed explanation as to why they do or don't like a show,
no matter how much they are regarded by in the industry as a whole.

It seems based on what you're saying that it takes a lot for a rating to change with an improved show. I think the second season of Supergirl is vastly better than the first (which I found to be a likable show, but not much more than that).

Yet oddly enough when season 2 of Supergirl started, it had an 80% RT audience score. Now it is down to 60%. Not much higher than the 52% for season one. But again with multiple 1/2 stars and no meaningful
comment given as to why it only gets a 1/2 star. I mean I see no vast decline in quality as season two has progressed to drop the show from 80% to 60%

One theory I have is Supergirl gets a lot of hate from right wing web sites because it is a lot more political than the other superhero shows. Which lead me to believe there is an organized campaign against the show
that other superhero shows don't have. Hence the ballot box stuffing? So maybe it's not a reflection of quality of the show, but of how one's political views lean. Also notice the 1/2 are all from men.

Maybe shows like Daredevil and Jessica Jones get better scores is they like to play it safe and try not to be too controversial.

 

[TeeKay]

Daredevil and Jessica Jones play it safe? What?!

 

[InCali]

How else to explain all the 1/2 stars given to Supergirl. The lowest registerable score. Not even a meaningful comment as to why it is only a 1/2 star show. If someone can't even articulate why they think the
show it that bad, how can that 1/2 be taken seriously? And yet some people still think the audience score means anything. At least the critics give a detailed explanation as to why they do or don't like a show,
no matter how much they are regarded by in the industry as a whole.



Yet oddly enough when season 2 of Supergirl started, it had an 80% RT audience score. Now it is down to 60%. Not much higher than the 52% for season one. But again with multiple 1/2 stars and no meaningful
comment given as to why it only gets a 1/2 star. I mean I see no vast decline in quality as season two has progressed to drop the show from 80% to 60%

One theory I have is Supergirl gets a lot of hate from right wing web sites because it is a lot more political than the other superhero shows. Which lead me to believe there is an organized campaign against the show
that other superhero shows don't have. Hence the ballot box stuffing? So maybe it's not a reflection of quality of the show, but of how one's political views lean. Also notice the 1/2 are all from men.

Maybe shows like Daredevil and Jessica Jones get better scores is they like to play it safe and try not to be too controversial.

Melissa is very cute and charming, but she is a terrible actor and, as the lead, it drags the show down.

 

[DrCosmic]

Maybe shows like Daredevil and Jessica Jones get better scores is they like to play it safe and try not to be too controversial.

I don't know about the rest of your comment, but let's kill this idea, bury it in an unmarked grave and drive away. There is no safe place for the idea that Supergirl, with it's, and I quote, "attractive yet nonthreatening racially diverse cast of a CW show," super suburban bent on all things urban, refusal to do an interracial relationship and ultimate deep moment with the sister coming out storyline has is somehow more controversial than, say, Jessica Jones. Not only does Jessica Jones see the 'coming out' "controversial" storyline and raise the stakes to a full blown murderous Lesbian love triangle office affair, but it did it first, before Supergirl was even ready to touch the subject of sexual orientation. Not only does Jessica Jones not rely on fanservice, which is what made the first episodes of Season 2 80% with Superman in a safe way, as opposed to the rest of the show with just his villains being around 60%, but Jessica Jones deals with actual controversial issues: drug addiction, rape survival, emotionally and mentally abusive relatoinships, stage parenting, PTSD, an interacial couple who isn't afraid to actually be together, or have lots and lots of sex, torture, illegal imprisonment, heroic exsanguination, and more and more and more controversial issues than Supergirl is even allowed to speak because she is a character who doesn't have to deal with that stuff. And by deals with I don't mean 'mentions casually' but has actual people experience the issue and then fall on either side of the issue and none of them are completely wrong or right.

If you're going to say that Supergirl is more controversial, then lets list some controversial things it's done that Jessica Jones and Daredevil have not. If you're going to say that Daredevil, or for fricks sake Jessica Jones plays it safe, then please point out some safe things its done or controversial things its avoided. Daredevil is almost as controversial, with it's non-villainous villain, it's refusal to even put on the costume until the end of Season 1, it's villainous hero in Season 2, it's murderous female leads, it's decision to permanently break up the team (something that will NEVER happen on a CW Superhero show), it's use of drugs, sex, blood and other sometimes offensive things to tell it's story. Luke Cage with a 90% Black cast, actually caused an outcry, just existing was Luke Cage's controversy, to say nothing of the religious themes, socioeconomic commentary, police brutality against minorities, and... why am I even still typing? Supergirl never comes close. Supergirl plays it safe. As it well should, because nothing in fiction is safer than putting on a Superman 'S' playing coy and smiling for the camera. And that's how we like our Supergirl. Safe. Nonthreatening. Noncontroversial.

 

[James]

Spoiler

I don't know about the rest of your comment, but let's kill this idea, bury it in an unmarked grave and drive away. There is no safe place for the idea that Supergirl, with it's, and I quote, "attractive yet nonthreatening racially diverse cast of a CW show," super suburban bent on all things urban, refusal to do an interracial relationship and ultimate deep moment with the sister coming out storyline has is somehow more controversial than, say, Jessica Jones. Not only does Jessica Jones see the 'coming out' "controversial" storyline and raise the stakes to a full blown murderous Lesbian love triangle office affair, but it did it first, before Supergirl was even ready to touch the subject of sexual orientation. Not only does Jessica Jones not rely on fanservice, which is what made the first episodes of Season 2 80% with Superman in a safe way, as opposed to the rest of the show with just his villains being around 60%, but Jessica Jones deals with actual controversial issues: drug addiction, rape survival, emotionally and mentally abusive relatoinships, stage parenting, PTSD, an interacial couple who isn't afraid to actually be together, or have lots and lots of sex, torture, illegal imprisonment, heroic exsanguination, and more and more and more controversial issues than Supergirl is even allowed to speak because she is a character who doesn't have to deal with that stuff. And by deals with I don't mean 'mentions casually' but has actual people experience the issue and then fall on either side of the issue and none of them are completely wrong or right.

If you're going to say that Supergirl is more controversial, then lets list some controversial things it's done that Jessica Jones and Daredevil have not. If you're going to say that Daredevil, or for fricks sake Jessica Jones plays it safe, then please point out some safe things its done or controversial things its avoided. Daredevil is almost as controversial, with it's non-villainous villain, it's refusal to even put on the costume until the end of Season 1, it's villainous hero in Season 2, it's murderous female leads, it's decision to permanently break up the team (something that will NEVER happen on a CW Superhero show), it's use of drugs, sex, blood and other sometimes offensive things to tell it's story. Luke Cage with a 90% Black cast, actually caused an outcry, just existing was Luke Cage's controversy, to say nothing of the religious themes, socioeconomic commentary, police brutality against minorities, and... why am I even still typing? Supergirl never comes close. Supergirl plays it safe. As it well should, because nothing in fiction is safer than putting on a Superman 'S' playing coy and smiling for the camera. And that's how we like our Supergirl. Safe. Nonthreatening. Noncontroversial.

 

[Dark Raven]

Melissa is very cute and charming, but she is a terrible actor and, as the lead, it drags the show down.

I disagree. I wouldn't say she's a terrible actor at all. Most people who watch the show comment on her convincing acting and the reason for watching the show. She carries it and is a compelling lead. She's certainly better than any of her contemporaries in any of the other DC CW shows. The only ones who out act her are the older actors in these shows, but she more than holds her own.

And she's certainly better than anyone on Agents of SHIELD.

 

[Ghost_Rider]

Why did season 2 ratings drop in the latter half, when it is considered the peak of the show? The main drop in season 4rating happened after episode 15. It took a while for the ratings to sink.

It was a marginal shift. The S2 premiere was at 2.74. The S2 finale was at 2.37. Nothing to write home about. Such fluctuations throughout the season happen due to pre-emptions and affiliates quite commonly.

Arrow S3 had a lot of positive marketing and positive buzz going towards it, thanks in part to S2 and the influx of marketing due to the premiere of the spinoff; Flash.

Let's see what happens during the back half of Season 5, but I'm skeptical that ratings or demos will improve at this point. It will just continue to slip.

The show made it's bed, now it must lay in it.

 

[Ghost_Rider]

I disagree. I wouldn't say she's a terrible actor at all. Most people who watch the show comment on her convincing acting and the reason for watching the show. She carries it and is a compelling lead. She's certainly better than any of her contemporaries in any of the other DC CW shows. The only ones who out act her are the older actors in these shows, but she more than holds her own.

She's not a terrible actress, but she's basically the female equivalent of Grant Gustin in every possible way.

There's a lot of cheesy acting performances on Supergirl that come off like a hammy 'afterschool' special. Though direction and dialogue may play a factor in that. Supergirl belongs on The CW.

And she's certainly better than anyone on Agents of SHIELD.

I wouldn't sell the performances on SHIELD short.

They're generally effective and elicit the emotions the scene requires.

[YT]_197cIhNXMI[/YT]

[YT]eAeV4IwzBZk[/YT]

[YT]4OUne9vj1ZI[/YT]

They're on par with other performances on the network.

 

[kguillou]

I really don't know what Marvel was thinking with Agents of Shield. The show has VASTLY improved but that first half of season one, what in the Heck were they thinking? AoS should have essentially been Marvel's version of '24,' or 'Strike Back,' a badass, action espionage show about Shield agents doing Shield agent things. Instead, they gave a us a bunch of junior "agents in training," had way too much humor and comedy and didn't even have much of S.H.I.E.L.D in the dang show. Characters like Bobbie, Hunter and Mack should've been there from the start with Maria Hill as a recurring character (yes, I know Colbie Smulders was on How I met Your Mother, but the show was on its way out and I'm sure Smulders would've loved to continue the role).

It's too bad, the concept of the show is a great one and the show's come a looong way, but Marvel completely botched the concept at the start and it never got the chance to really live up to its potential. Now its the red-headed step child that the MCU wants nothing to do with.

 

[psylockolussus]

The lead was also a problem. I mean if we look at the superhero or comic book TV shows right now, the lead characters are Supergirl, The Flash, Green Arrow, Daredevil, Luke Cage, Rick and there's Phil Coulson. Geez.

 

[Ghost_Rider]

Agreed there. The show would have been much stronger with a Jack Bauer-type lead.

At the time, Marvel gave Whedon a lot of rope, and this was intended to be another Whedon-esque series. His work is somewhat polarizing on TV. The Buffy stuff lasted so long because it was on a subpar network.

I'm glad SHIELD found it's voice, but it's time for it to end. Especially in this post-Daredevil Netflix era.

The Inhumans series sounds like the right type of replacement for Agents Of Shield.

 

[DrCosmic]

The show would have worked even better with a Whedon-ized Mockingbird as the lead. It would have been new and fresh and superheroic and in Whedon's core strengths and given to affordable quality consistent TV action. Just so much awesome could have been there. Doubly so with Maria Hill as her mentor.

Daisy was supposed to be that, a co-lead with Phil as the show follows her growth into a superhero as it does his... Philness, but even her name is evidence that they really didn't know what they were doing with the character. It was a bad call. And I agree they should let it go.

 

[Ghost_Rider]

The show would have worked even better with a Whedon-ized Mockingbird as the lead. It would have been new and fresh and superheroic and in Whedon's core strengths and given to affordable quality consistent TV action. Just so much awesome could have been there. Doubly so with Maria Hill as her mentor.

Daisy was supposed to be that, a co-lead with Phil as the show follows her growth into a superhero as it does his... Philness, but even her name is evidence that they really didn't know what they were doing with the character. It was a bad call. And I agree they should let it go.

I hate to say it, but I don't even think a Mockingbird lead would have worked with this concept.

Even the superb Agent Carter series turned in disappointing ratings during it's first season.

I'm skeptical that some fans and audiences would support a main network TV series if the main superhero is a woman.

A strong male lead would have likely led to a more successful SHIELD series.

 

[DrCosmic]

...you might be right. I'm thinking about Scandal, but a more fitting parallel would be Nikita. A male lead probably would have been more successful, but the most successful may have been the TV favorite of a not-yet-a-couple male and female leads (as opposed to the not yet father and daughter male and female leads they tried for). I don't know if Agent Carter is the best example. That was almost as weird a choice of spinoff as Most Wanted, with a horrible storyline, imho, except it had an incredible actress in the lead trying to carry everything.

 

[Fincher]

Agent Carter's biggest problem might have been that it was yet another superhero-themed show that didn't star superheroes, let alone big name ones. Supergirl fared better.

 

[TheVileOne]

How can you call Daredevil safe:

Spoiler

When they kill off Ben Urich in the first season?

 

[Slade W]

It was a marginal shift. The S2 premiere was at 2.74. The S2 finale was at 2.37. Nothing to write home about. Such fluctuations throughout the season happen due to pre-emptions and affiliates quite commonly.

Arrow S3 had a lot of positive marketing and positive buzz going towards it, thanks in part to S2 and the influx of marketing due to the premiere of the spinoff; Flash.

Let's see what happens during the back half of Season 5, but I'm skeptical that ratings or demos will improve at this point. It will just continue to slip.

The show made it's bed, now it must lay in it.

But surely if the ratings were all about quality, then they would have picked up, as the latter half of S2 to this day is still viewed as the show at its best. The reasons you gave there can be used for this season too, in addition to the damage caused last season. This season so far has definitely been better than seasons 3 and 4. The response online backs that up. There was very little questioning of things so far this season, during and after the episodes. The main concern is Olicity getting back together. The Flash has also been down in ratings this seasons, right from the beginning of the season.

If the show can maintain its level and pick up as a show should do as they get more into the main villains plan and motivation, I think ratings should improve. Not massively, but at enough to reach some of the ratings the show was getting at the end of last season, which were not considered great either. Even though most online fans acknowledge the strong start the season has had, there are still a lot of worries about them dropping the ball in the 2nd half, and that is mainly down to the damage from last year. I think it would take a full good season for the ratings to improve and for more people to get back on board. I wouldn't be surprised if the show never starts getting the ratings that it used to get in seasons 2 and 3, no matter how much it improves due to the damage done and the ratings dropping for the other CW shows too.

With that said, from what I am hearing about the 2nd half, I do expect them to drop the ball. It is not so much the ideas themselves, it is rather that I do not think they are capable of executing them properly. There is something they are planning which I think is a good idea and perhaps something they should have done before IMO, but unfortunately I do not think they will be able to do it properly and that it will be cringe-inducing. If you follow Arrow news, I am sure you know what I am talking about. There are other things too that I do not expect them to carry out properly.

 

[Dark Raven]

We still have Marvel's Most Wanted to look forward to in the near future. Once that starts airing, we can be posting in its forum.

 

[chamber-music]

I don't like the fact Arrow's Oliver Queen is low budget Batman. The comic Oliver has a sense of humor and isn't serious all the time. Amell has very limited range as actor as well.