Sci-Fi News and Reviews

Man, I didn't realize it was on last night, but I am a TiVo person, so the TV execs hate me. I agree that the second show was better than the first and it looked interesting enough for several more show viewings. I was trying to actually watch the show live to be able to give it the best ratings since I thought it was worth it, but like you said, this is idiocy. However, Fox has never been good at giving new shows their best support. Grrrr!

What if there are already immortals living among us? What if 1 or more of these immortals is a living, breathing Old Testament prophet?

If you are serious about this subject of immortality, then you will be quite interested in my research and findings on this very topic.

I have summarized what I have found on my main blog: www.Ben-Abba.com.

I don't view Fox airing New Amsterdam after American Idol on Tuesday and Thursdays as a sabotage attempt. Rather, a couple of good tries to expose the show to millions of viewers. Obviously, not all the AI crowd will stick around for NA on its new night, but considering it did a 5.5 in the ratings on Monday March 10th, maybe the plan is working. Plus, New Amsterdam bested Canterbury's Law's lead-in numbers. Only time will tell if audiences stick around for this series-with-potential. Fox's biggest downfall is their lack of confidence in the series' they bring to the air, and giving up too fast.

I hear the exposure (via AI) argument - but the 5.5 that New Amsterdam garnered on Monday is less than half of what it did on its debut night (13.495, according to Futon Critic) and less than it did on Thursday (6.5).

I attribute the moving dates as a primary reason that the numbers dropped. If I was a FOX exec, I might say "dropped dramatically".

I agree with you that FOX doesn't show confidence in their programming. But, they also need to be held accountable for botching the scheduling.

I know the Monday 5.5 is a far cry from the Tuesday debut. But a 5.5 is respectable for Fox on a Monday night. New Amsterdam did better than the premier of Canterbury's Law, and its initial Monday ratings were better than Prison Break all last year, and better than any ratings for K-Ville. And "24," from what I can remember, does somewhere in the 6+ ratings arena. I have no idea whether New Amsterdam can hold on to its 5.5+/- ratings, but at least it was exposed to the large AI audiences. I agree that exposing a show to audiences on completely different nights from that which it will routinely inhabit is risky. Will it do any long-term good? Seems the TV business is mercurial and without a any sort of absolutes in the debut+good ratings=success arena. Only time will tell.

Dude, putting the show after AI (no matter what day it's on) may sound like a good idea, but it's not.

Having the first three episodes of a show on three different days of the week is NOT a good way to build an audience. I had personally been looking forward to this show ever since they ran the promos last year for it. However, I was confused as hell as to what night it was going to be on, and if it weren't for having a DVR, I would've missed at least two of the episodes.

The lack of advertising for New Amsterdam and the way they botched the launch of the series makes me think they expect it to tank. I like the show a lot, but I've stopped watching and am just letting the shows collect in my DVR. What's the point in getting invested in a show that looks sure to be cancelled?

Interesting. I wasn't confused at all as to when the show would be on - only as to when it would start! But after watching the premier episode, it was stated clearly that the second episode would be on Thursday night, and after Thursday's ep that the next would be on Monday. But I do agree that people are creatures of habit, and airing a show on one single night every week is the best way to build an audience. Fox essentially traded 2 episodes to gaining exposure rather than building the core audience. But if you think airing New Amsterdam after American Idol didn't promote the show, you're wrong. The 2 nights it ran after AI garnered the most ratings points as people stayed and sampled the show. I suppose the better argument would be whether those were the viewers who would actually be interested in continuing to watch. I think the move paid off in some measure, as NA has garnered a steady 4.8 rating (about the same as Sarah Connor) on Monday nights, which I don't think it would have gotten if it hadn't aired after AI. I hope that's enough for Fox to keep the show around. But its Fox, after all...