# The Following



## Sixto

Wow. 

A keeper.


----------



## Galaxie6411

Yeah not bad, was wondering if the one guy was somehow going to be THE story line, looks like he will be and they worked around it. Still a danger of it getting old and repetitive. Glad to see Fox is hitting hard and showing 14 straight episodes with rerun once a week. No split season stupidity.


----------



## lparsons21

Excellent start with good lead actors. I'm not a big Bacon fan, but Purfoy is always enjoyable.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

We really liked it too and were looking forward to watching this one. Not too often we watch something the night it airs.


----------



## RunnerFL

I recorded it but I'm waiting to watch until I find out it's a ratings hit and/or it is going to stay around to complete the season.


----------



## spartanstew

We liked it. I thought they squeezed too much into the first episode, but also understand why they did it. There were also a couple of "bad acting/writing" moments (specifically when he reacted to "Nevermore" 5 minutes after seeing it), but overall very good. Looking forward to more.


----------



## litex2x

KEVIN BACON!


----------



## austen0316

I enjoyed it as well.....hopefully the ratings show it


----------



## klang

Was the show as gruesome as some articles have warned?


----------



## Sixto

Yes.


----------



## klang

Sixto said:


> Yes.


Thanks. I'll pass for now.


----------



## TMan

As someone on avsforum opined:

Bacon is good in everything.

Kevin Bacon is also good in everything.

It can't be a coincidence.​
It was pretty graphic for a broadcast network, in my opinion.


----------



## litex2x

It's not as greusome as a Saw movie but it is above average for TV.


----------



## ThomasM

RunnerFL said:


> I recorded it but I'm waiting to watch until I find out it's a ratings hit and/or it is going to stay around to complete the season.


Me too. It's a good plan lately, ESPECIALLY WITH FOX. They like to waste your time getting you to like a series only to cancel it. This just happened with a show I really liked- "Mob Doctor". Fortunately, they ran all the episodes that were filmed but you had to pay attention because they were scheduled all over the map on different days and at different times.

I remember the good old days when new shows that premiered in the fall ran for 26 episodes irregardless of their ratings. And they also lasted 51 minutes not 40.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I haven't watched the recorded show, but heard from 3 other people who did and another co-worker who saw it too. All 4 people said the very same thing - what the heck was FOX thinking putting this show on the air, not to mention before 11pm?

There's enough crazies out there without adding this kind of insane violence.

If they're insisting on broadcasting it....do it late at night.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I haven't watched the recorded show, but heard from 3 other people who did and another co-worker who saw it too. All 4 people said the very same thing - what the heck was FOX thinking putting this show on the air, not to mention before 11pm?


Because FOX ends their broadcast at 10pm? 



hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's enough crazies out there without adding this kind of insane violence.
> 
> If they're insisting on broadcasting it....do it late at night.


Have you seen Bones, Castle, Hawaii Five-O, or pretty much any other crime drama?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> Have you seen Bones, Castle, Hawaii Five-O, or pretty much any other crime drama?


I'll have to see myself later this week to compare firsthand...but these other viewers said this new show is waaaaay beyond anything else on TV when it came to the violence.

They all also said this almost glamorized it in comparison to other shows.

Guess until I see it, I'll have to hold off on any further perspective....but all they people were uncharacteristically upset about this show being on the air. One of them already called their Fox affiliate to complain.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> One of them already called their Fox affiliate to complain.


Sad...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> Sad...


If what they described was accurate...then I'd say KUDOS.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If what they described was accurate...then I'd say KUDOS.


If what they described was accurate and offends them then I say "quit watching" and let those who aren't offended enjoy the show. There's no need to get some sort of coup going and get the show cancelled just because some people are offended.

I don't need someone deciding what's best for me. I can do that just fine on my own.


----------



## spartanstew

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'll have to see myself later this week to compare firsthand...but these other viewers said this new show is waaaaay beyond anything else on TV when it came to the violence.


Bull****.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> .but all they people were uncharacteristically upset about this show being on the air. One of them already called their Fox affiliate to complain.


I think you need new friends.


----------



## hilmar2k

RunnerFL;3167398 said:


> If what they described was accurate and offends them then I say "quit watching" and let those who aren't offended enjoy the show. There's no need to get some sort of coup going and get the show cancelled just because some people are offended.
> 
> I don't need someone deciding what's best for me. I can do that just fine on my own.


Indeed. Can't agree more.


----------



## cdc101

RunnerFL said:


> If what they described was accurate and offends them then I say "quit watching" and let those who aren't offended enjoy the show. There's no need to get some sort of coup going and get the show cancelled just because some people are offended.
> 
> I don't need someone deciding what's best for me. I can do that just fine on my own.


^^^ This.


----------



## 1953

klang said:


> Was the show as gruesome as some articles have warned?


Yes. I really looked forward to this how but it's too much for me to handle. Had to stop watching early on. We watched a new PBS British police drama series, DCI Banks. The story line was just as tragic yet they handled the gore and violence in a much less "in your face" approach. We'll give the second eposoide of The Following" a try. Hopefully it will be okay.


----------



## Hoosier205

Some people live in a bubble. Too gruesome? Try life then, it's much worse.


----------



## jimmie57

klang said:


> Was the show as gruesome as some articles have warned?


It was for me. Wow, it is pretty far out on the edge. Not sure if I will watch it again.


----------



## swyman18

Worse than The Walking Dead?


----------



## phrelin

My wife and I really liked it. It offers some of the feel of "The Killing."

Gruesome? Many "Criminal Minds" episodes and episodes of other shows are just as or more so. Many people are just queasy about getting stabbed in the eye - hence, the focus on Poe's take on the eye. But getting stabbed in the gut is not less gruesome.

Ironically, the LA Times' Carolyn Kellogg writes about this show incorrectly interpreting Poe. Of course, she is equally wrong about it when she says: "The show's core idea of a serial killer came long after Poe himself. Poe died in 1849, and the term serial killer took hold more than 100 years later, after midcentury murder sprees by the likes of John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy.'

The term "serial killer" may be newer but it's definition describes criminal activity that has been recorded in the Western World at least since the 16th Century. We just didn't classify criminal activity using that term until after the science of psychology developed and became accepted in the early 20th Century.

But I digress. Returning to Poe, and the eye, let me quote someone else:


> The human eye has long been seen as the window to the soul, reflecting truths and secrets the body attempts to hide. Poe was not blind to the this view of the eye and widely used this belief in his tales such as "The Black Cat" and "Ligeia," emphasizing the eyes powers to reflect unspeakable emotions. Perhaps Poe's most haunting use of the mysterious eye is in his most famous short story "The Tell-Tale Heart." It is the the pale blue, vulture eye of the old man that drives the narrator to insanity and causes the narrator to gruesomely murder the old man.


This was a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted pilot. Without becoming heavy-handed we were given a lot of knowledge about the primary characters.

I'm looking forward to future episodes.


----------



## oldschoolecw

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I haven't watched the recorded show, but heard from 3 other people who did and another co-worker who saw it too. All 4 people said the very same thing - what the heck was FOX thinking putting this show on the air, not to mention before 11pm?
> 
> There's enough crazies out there without adding this kind of insane violence.
> 
> If they're insisting on broadcasting it....do it late at night.


I watched it last night and will continue doing so, very good story so far.. And as far as broadcasting it late at night, we live in a BIG BROTHER America and here are their TV rating rules http://www.tvguidelines.org/

Just saying


----------



## trh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If they're insisting on broadcasting it....do it late at night.


You recorded the show. Are you going to wait until after 11PM to watch it?


----------



## oldschoolecw

trh said:


> You recorded the show. Are you going to wait until after 11PM to watch it?










:lol:


----------



## TomCat

phrelin said:


> ...This was a ... well-directed, ...pilot. Without becoming heavy-handed we were given a lot of knowledge about the primary characters...


This is where we part ways. The directing was amateurish, and used every heavy-handed slasher-film cliche in the toolkit, including startling for shock value and jacking up the volume at that point to try to knock the viewer out of their chair. At least 3 times. That is only a pale imitation of good directing or true entertainment. The "M" episode of _Elementary _last week is a good example of how much better this sort of story can be handled.

But it is also well known that FOX and others force the creators to shoehorn that sort of stuff in, so maybe now that the pilot did mildly better than _Alcatraz _or _Terra Nova_, and significantly better than _Mob Doctor_, they will lay off that. If they don't, and if this doesn't get a lot better quickly, those ratings will go down at least by one viewer.

But hey, other than that, I agreed with most of your post, which was the best post here so far.


----------



## lugnutathome

Interesting discourse as a result of what I thought was captivating escapism which is after all what a good show is to me. 

A bit gruesome I would say, likely never get my wife to watch it for sure but seriously "grabbing the pitchforks" is a GREAT way to create interest in the many who missed it. Publicity that is controversial will generate more interest in the show than the network could ever buy. 

I would suspect the gruesome "hook" will dissipate as the show finds its pulse (if allowed). Yeah it had some of the genre cliche stuff but really what new is there anymore? (Rocky 97 (the Rest Home Chronicles))? :nono:

Don "Right now it remains on my series record" Bolton


----------



## LOCODUDE

I recorded it, and am trying not to read the comments posted here. That is, until I have watched the show !


----------



## Church AV Guy

I have little to contribute except that it was WAY too over-the-top graphic and gruesome for me. I didn't make it through the pilot, and I deleted the SP for it.


----------



## spartanstew

I gotta say I watched the whole Pilot with my wife and not only did we love it, it never even really occurred to either one of us that it was too graphic or violent or anything of that nature. Maybe that's because some of our other favorites are Walking Dead, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, Criminal Minds and CSI (and yes, I know some of those are on Premium channels). I didn't see anything in The Following that I haven't seen before and to be honest, the language in shows like 2 Broke Girls and The B**** bother me much more than anything I saw in The Following.


----------



## Drucifer

This one goes into my Who Cares category. as I'll probably spend more time on the Internet then watching it.


----------



## Hoosier205

I can only imagine that the people claiming it is too gruesome have spent most of their adult lives watching made-for-tv movies on the Hallmark Channel or reruns of Matlock.


----------



## oldschoolecw

spartanstew said:


> I gotta say I watched the whole Pilot with my wife and not only did we love it, it never even really occurred to either one of us that it was too graphic or violent or anything of that nature. Maybe that's because some of our other favorites are Walking Dead, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, Criminal Minds and CSI (and yes, I know some of those are on Premium channels). I didn't see anything in The Following that I haven't seen before and to be honest, the language in shows like 2 Broke Girls and The B**** bother me much more than anything I saw in The Following.


Same here, not more graphic then what's been on TV the past 10+ years


----------



## hdtvfan0001

trh said:


> You recorded the show. Are you going to wait until after 11PM to watch it?


Nope. Got the chance to see it tonight.


----------



## Nick

Drucifer said:


> This one goes into my Who Cares category. as I'll probably spend more time on the Internet then watching it.


than


oldschoolecw said:


> Same here, not more graphic then what's been on TV the past 10+ years


than


----------



## jimmie57

spartanstew said:


> I gotta say I watched the whole Pilot with my wife and not only did we love it, it never even really occurred to either one of us that it was too graphic or violent or anything of that nature. Maybe that's because some of our other favorites are Walking Dead, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, *Criminal Minds *and CSI (and yes, I know some of those are on Premium channels). I didn't see anything in The Following that I haven't seen before and to be honest, the language in shows like 2 Broke Girls and The B**** bother me much more than anything I saw in The Following.


I just watched a Criminal Minds and I agree, they are both similar for the gruesome stuff.

I like programs like Castle, Suits, White Collar, etc. a lot better.


----------



## 1953

And.............. (this symbolizes an awkward pause while we wait for the next commen)


----------



## MysteryMan

spartanstew said:


> I gotta say I watched the whole Pilot with my wife and not only did we love it, it never even really occurred to either one of us that it was too graphic or violent or anything of that nature. Maybe that's because some of our other favorites are Walking Dead, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, Criminal Minds and CSI (and yes, I know some of those are on Premium channels). I didn't see anything in The Following that I haven't seen before and to be honest, the language in shows like 2 Broke Girls and The B**** bother me much more than anything I saw in The Following.


Makes one wonder about society when people find language offensive but not graphic violence.


----------



## RunnerFL

MysteryMan said:


> Makes one wonder about society when people find language offensive but not graphic violence.


Ever visit Europe? You'll find over there that language and nudity are no big deal but violence is a big no-no.


----------



## Diana C

RunnerFL said:


> Ever visit Europe? You'll find over there that language and nudity are no big deal but violence is a big no-no.


Tell that to the team responsible for "Ripper Street."


----------



## RunnerFL

Diana C said:


> Tell that to the team responsible for "Ripper Street."


That was made by BBC America for American audiences, not distribution in the UK. They know how we like our violence.


----------



## trh

Drucifer said:


> This one goes into my Who Cares category. as I'll probably spend more time on the Internet then watching it.





Nick said:


> than





oldschoolecw said:


> Same here, not more graphic then what's been on TV the past 10+ years





Nick said:


> than


"I'd rather cuddle than have sex."

or

"I'd rather cuddle then have sex."

One word does make a difference.


----------



## phrelin

Did anyone watch this week's episode of "Criminal Minds" running from 9-10 pm and, as I did, think about the criticism of Fox here for "The Following" being too gruesome? And about the eye issue....


----------



## joshjr

Sixto said:


> Wow.
> 
> A keeper.


I am trying not to get to interested in it because of FOX's recent track record with the new shows they push hard prior to starting (Alcatraz & Chicago Code).

I loved both Chicago Code and Alcatraz and then they were just gone as soon as they began. The Following started great but we will see if they plan a 2nd season. The last thing I want is it to turn into a Prison Break type show that stayed way to long. Hopefully FOX will get it right this time.


----------



## Sixto

joshjr said:


> I am trying not to get to interested in it because of FOX's recent track record with the new shows they push hard prior to starting (Alcatraz & Chicago Code).
> 
> I loved both Chicago Code and Alcatraz and then they were just gone as soon as they began. The Following started great but we will see if they plan a 2nd season. The last thing I want is it to turn into a Prison Break type show that stayed way to long. Hopefully FOX will get it right this time.


Yep, I do miss Alcatraz.


----------



## Diana C

RunnerFL said:


> That was made by BBC America for American audiences, not distribution in the UK. They know how we like our violence.


Ripper Street is also running in the UK on BBC1.


----------



## BubblePuppy

Missy and I just watched The Following. We just don't see what the big deal is. " Bones" and " Criminal Minds" (just to name two shows) are just as, if not more graphic than this show. 
We both like the show and are looking forward to a successful run.


----------



## 1953

Off Topic

I think the people at 1600 Penn didn't get the message their show was cancelled. Yes, it's that moronic. :hurah:


----------



## RunnerFL

1953 said:


> Off Topic
> 
> I think the people at 1600 Penn didn't get the message their show was cancelled. Yes, it's that moronic. :hurah:


It's supposed to be, that's the point.


----------



## renbutler

My wife and I were big Fringe fans, and she liked Alcatraz.

But neither of us were that into The Following.

I'll give it at least another week though.


----------



## phrelin

I can't really compare this show to the scifi show Fox has aired that I really loved.

"The Following" is a psychological crime procedural of sorts with an overarching story arc about a cult of followers of a serial killer, with all the humor and charm of "Criminal Minds" (also on at 9 pm on a broadcast network) and the warm appeal of the Manson Family.

For Fox I see it more like "Prison Break" in that they're trying to get an audience for a Monday time slot with something not too different than what wins time slots for CBS.

Apparently some sensitive folks think its far more violent than "Prison Break." They either didn't watch Fox on Mondays from the fall of 2005 through the spring of 2009 or have short memories as "Prison Break" won a People's Choice Award in 2006.

Admittedly this show is likely to have a few more Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell's, that lovable, cunning, violent, and manipulative psychopath.

Again, I liked the premier episode - thought it was well put together for a pilot. Given the amount of back story crammed into an hour, it didn't feel nearly as heavy handed as some pilots.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

RunnerFL said:


> Because FOX ends their broadcast at 10pm?
> 
> Have you seen Bones, Castle, Hawaii Five-O, or pretty much any other crime drama?


The Following has much more gore than any of those shows.

This isn't your typical TV crime drama and has little in common with Bones, Castle, Hawaii Five-0.

It's more like "Red Dragon" (or the '86 version "Manhunter") was made into a TV series with all the darkness and most of the gore.

Mike


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Mike Bertelson said:


> The Following has much more gore than any of those shows.
> 
> This isn't your typical TV crime drama and has little in common with Bones, Castle, Hawaii Five-0.
> 
> It's more like "Red Dragon" (or the '86 version "Manhunter") was made into a TV series with all the darkness and most of the gore.
> 
> Mike


Totally agree.

A 9:00pm timeslot seems inappropriate.


----------



## Hoosier205

hdtvfan0001;3170261 said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> A 9:00pm timeslot seems inappropriate.


...that is the latest time-slot available to FOX.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hoosier205 said:


> ...that is the latest time-slot available to FOX.


Know that.

It's still not appropriate for 9pm IMHO.


----------



## Hoosier205

hdtvfan0001;3170265 said:


> Know that.
> 
> It's still not appropriate for 9pm IMHO.


Then don't watch it.


----------



## EdJ

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Know that.
> 
> It's still not appropriate for 9pm IMHO.


It is fine for me... That is why they built in an 'OFF' button on the television....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

EdJ said:


> It is fine for me... That is why they built in an 'OFF' button on the television....


So when they put hard core porn on a bunch of network channels in prime time, that won't bother anyone either.

Gotcha - no accountability for having any standards anymore - I smell what's cooking.


Hoosier205 said:


> Then don't watch it.


Good advice - suspect many others will follow it.


----------



## hilmar2k

hdtvfan0001;3170272 said:


> So when they put hard core porn on a bunch of network channels in prime time, that won't bother anyone either.
> 
> Gotcha - no accountability for having any standards anymore - I smell what's cooking.


Way to take it way too far.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

hilmar2k said:


> Way to take it way too far.


Actually....that's precisely what was being suggested.

No worries.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/foxs-the-following-numb-to-violence-and-deadly-dull/2013/01/20/ff07f780-62c6-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/kevin-bacons-tv-review-409642
http://tv.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/arts/television/the-following-starring-kevin-bacon-on-fox.html?_r=1&


----------



## Hoosier205

hdtvfan0001;3170272 said:


> So when they put hard core porn on a bunch of network channels in prime time, that won't bother anyone either.


Something they are prohibited from doing.  I guess you should stick to The 700 Club and Touched By An Angel reruns. If this is too much for you, then please refrain from watching the news or paying attention to the real world events around you...you'd never recover from the shock.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hoosier205 said:


> Something they are prohibited from doing.  I guess you should stick to The 700 Club and Touched By An Angel reruns. If this is too much for you, then please refrain from watching the news or *paying attention to the real world events around you*...you'd never recover from the shock.


Gotcha...I'll watch my news tonight to see the exact same depth of gore content.

Thanks for your insights.


----------



## Hoosier205

hdtvfan0001;3170285 said:


> Gotcha...I'll watch my news tonight to see the exact same depth of gore content.
> 
> Thanks for your insights.


You are very welcome. Anything I can do to help, as usual.


----------



## RunnerFL

No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. If it's "too gory" for you then don't watch, just don't ruin it for those of us who want to watch it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> No one is forcing anyone to watch anything. If it's "too gory" for you *then don't watch*, just don't ruin it for those of us who want to watch it.


This type of "case" is made any time lines get crossed in programming.

The key issue was availability at the current timeslot on network TV, easily available to most <21 year olds. If it was on at 11pm or later...that's another story.

As many in the media have already pointed out, it's an *optional **cable-channel caliber gore program *shown on a national network channel in prime time. There's plenty of this stuff on Showtime, etc. to keep the Dexter-kinda-programming fans oozing in gore to their hearts content.

Enjoy.


----------



## Hoosier205

hdtvfan0001;3170293 said:


> This type of "case" is made any time lines get crossed in programming.
> 
> The key issue was availability at the current timeslot on network TV, easily available to most <21 year olds. If it was on at 11pm or later...that's another story.
> 
> As many in the media have already pointed out, it's an optional cable-channel caliber gore program shown on a national network channel in prime time. There's plenty of this stuff on Showtime, etc. to keep the Dexter-kinda-programming fans oozing in gore to their hearts content.
> 
> Enjoy.


Under 21? Oh good lord...you'd place more limitations on this program that those that receive an NC-17 rating. If a minor has across to this show then that is the choice of their legal guardian. You'll start burning books and declaring Elvis-type Rock n' Roll as evil next. Welcome to 1956.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This type of "case" is made any time lines get crossed in programming.


There is no "line" as you say. There's no definition of what is "too gory" for what time slot. This is just something that people have made up in an effort to force their beliefs on the rest of us. If you don't like it don't watch, it's pretty simple, but don't dictate what I can and can't watch.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> The key issue was availability at the current timeslot on network TV, easily available to most <21 year olds. If it was on at 11pm or later...that's another story.


There is no 11pm slot for network TV at all and you know that. Who are you to decide 11pm is the desired time anyways??? And 21? GIVE ME A BREAK!



hdtvfan0001 said:


> As many in the media have already pointed out, it's an *optional **cable-channel caliber gore program *shown on a national network channel in prime time. There's plenty of this stuff on Showtime, etc. to keep the Dexter-kinda-programming fans oozing in gore to their hearts content.


So? That's a lame statement... "There's plenty of..." Please... There's plenty of reality shows yet we continue to get them. You don't see me calling my local affiliates or the press because there's too much reality. You know why? I don't try to dictate what others should watch!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hoosier205 said:


> Under 21? Oh good lord...you'd place more limitations on this program that those that receive an NC-17 rating. If a minor has across to this show then that is the choice of their legal guardian. You'll start burning books and declaring Elvis-type Rock n' Roll as evil next. *Welcome to 1956*.


WOO HOO - those were good times. :up:

But actually more like 1986. Disco was the root of all evil ya know.

Still -there were common sense standards.

Thanks for the trip down memory lane.


----------



## markrubi

jimmie57 said:


> It was for me. Wow, it is pretty far out on the edge. Not sure if I will watch it again.


Just out of curiosity have you seen Full Metal Jacket? It was on this weekend is why I am asking. The scene in the "HEAD" when the marine shoots Sgt. Hartman is pretty gruesome. The Following is tame compared to it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> There is no "line" as you say. There's no definition of what is "too gory" for what time slot.


Ever hear of the FCC?

I guess one gal's wardrobe malfunction at the Suprebowl is worthy of fines whereas suggestive gore is just great. Those are lines just waiting to be crossed, whether people are in denial or not.

Enjoy - nobody's gonna change anyone's minds here on the definition of "acceptable" levels of violence.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Ever hear of the FCC?


Yes, well aware of the FCC but they have no "line" that says all gore must be shown after 11pm. That's something you just made up.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess one gal's wardrobe malfunction at the Suprebowl is worthy of fines whereas suggestive gore is just great. Those are lines just waiting to be crossed, whether people are in denial or not.


Now you're comparing apples to oranges... The "wardrobe malfunction" was something that really happened. The Following is a TV show that is made up. Now if FOX were showing something like Faces Of Death you MIGHT have a point.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Enjoy - nobody's gonna change anyone's minds here on the definition of "acceptable" levels of violence.


Then quit imposing your beliefs on us by trying to get a show taken off the air because YOU find it "too gory".


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, well aware of the FCC but they have no "line" that says all gore must be shown after 11pm. That's something you just *made up*.


Really? The FCC has no specific programming "time limitation" on assessing gore, but tends to focus on prime time and encourage "adult" programming during later hours. Nothing new there for decades - nor "made up".


> Now you're comparing apples to oranges... The "wardrobe malfunction" was something that really happened. The Following is a TV show that is made up. Now if FOX were showing something like Faces Of Death you MIGHT have a point.


Programming standards are programming standards...they may be red or green...but they're all apples.


> Then quit imposing your beliefs on us by trying to get a show taken off the air because YOU find it "too gory".


It would seem equally clear that those who promote this kind of programming are "imposing" their beliefs of acceptability - two sides on a coin.

Choices are nice.

Likewise...everyone's views are of equal value.

Enjoy the program.


----------



## Steve

phrelin said:


> Did anyone watch this week's episode of "Criminal Minds" running from 9-10 pm and, as I did, think about the criticism of Fox here for "The Following" being too gruesome?


Bingo. It also had the highest # of viewers in the 9PM time-slot.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...l-minds-suburgatory-csi-adjusted-down/166476/


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Okay, it's time to discuss The Following.

Standard and Practices would be a different thread.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Really? The FCC has no specific programming "time limitation" on assessing gore, but tends to focus on prime time and encourage "adult" programming during later hours. Nothing new there for decades - nor "made up".


Not for "gore" they do not, unless you mean Al Gore. They do for sexual content, but not "gore".



hdtvfan0001 said:


> Programming standards are programming standards...they may be red or green...but they're all apples.


Not true, you can't compare reality to fiction.



hdtvfan0001 said:


> It would seem equally clear that those who promote this kind of programming are "imposing" their beliefs of acceptability - two sides on a coin.


Not true at all. Again, you don't have to watch it. No one is forcing you or imposing anything on you, you have a choice. However if you get the show cancelled that forces us to stop watching and takes our choice away.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

RunnerFL said:


> Not true at all. Again, you don't have to watch it. No one is forcing you or imposing anything on you, you have a choice. However if you get the show canceled that forces us to stop watching and takes our choice away.


Yes...the FCC can control content for a variety of reasons, not just sexual in nature. Fiction or not, what is depicted on television is under their jurisdiction. As stated before, choices are just fine.

OK - we'll just have to agree then to disagree as to what constitutes mindless violence and gore, and what is constitutes "entertainment".

That's why remotes have a channel change button.

Enjoy.


----------



## Galaxie6411

I a going to pay attention to all this "gore" on this weeks episode. I think last week they actually didn't show very much, had a lot of cut away scenes or very quick shots. The woman who stabbed herself, IIRC they showed before and a quick shot after but not the actual act, same with the dog room, a few quick shots where you couldn't distinguish anything and the quick gotchya with the dog moving. I think people are remembering a lot more than really happened which means it is a very well shot show. I see tonites is PG13 V, L, SC, D--which is pretty standard for most nightly crime shows it seems.


----------



## phrelin

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yes...the FCC can control content for a variety of reasons, not just sexual in nature. Fiction or not, what is depicted on television is under their jurisdiction. As stated before, choices are just fine.
> 
> OK - we'll just have to agree then to disagree as to what constitutes mindless violence and gore, and what is constitutes "entertainment".
> 
> That's why remotes have a channel change button.
> 
> Enjoy.


If you think the one episode of "The Following" we've seen constitutes "mindless violence and gore" then I assume you categorize "Criminal Minds" and at least some other crime procedurals on broadcast TV that way.

There really is no getting around the idea that a serial killer who slowly drains people's blood and cuts off their eyelids so that have to watch (the plot on last week's "Criminal Minds") is not as bad as "The Following" pilot.

"Criminal Minds" is on at 9 pm Wednesdays and pulls about 12 million viewers even when up against "American Idol."

Fox has no scripted TV that pulls that many viewers and so far in this decade is lucky to get 25% of that number for its scifi offerings. New episodes of "Bones" at 8 pm Monday pull about 8.5 million viewers which will be the lead in to "The Following" and seems to me to offer some rather sickening remains and gore.

I still think the only problem "The Following" premier created for people is the focus on the eye.


----------



## TomCat

phrelin said:


> ..."The Following" is a psychological crime procedural of sorts with an overarching story arc about a cult of followers of a serial killer, with all the humor and charm of "Criminal Minds" (also on at 9 pm on a broadcast network) and the warm appeal of the Manson Family.
> 
> For Fox I see it more like "Prison Break" in that they're trying to get an audience for a Monday time slot with something not too different than what wins time slots for CBS.
> 
> Apparently some sensitive folks think its far more violent than "Prison Break." They either didn't watch Fox on Mondays from the fall of 2005 through the spring of 2009 or have short memories as "Prison Break" won a People's Choice Award in 2006.
> 
> Admittedly this show is likely to have a few more Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell's, that lovable, cunning, violent, and manipulative psychopath...


Well put.

I think the difference here is the level of gratuity rather than the level of violence, what is perceived appropriate or not appropriate. The violence on _Prison Break_, or even on _Criminal Minds_, which has devolved into psycho of the week (I hung with it until all the hot chicks left) seems almost appropriate for the subject matter, even if just as or even more violent. Others may say that the subject matter on_ The Following _isn't exactly a Disney movie, but for some reason I can't quite put my finger on the violence seems gratuitous, purposeful rather than incidental, and shoehorned in for cheap shock value. Sorry, that's a turn-off.

And I freely admit that humans are violent by nature; just google the crusades or the inquisition to get an idea. Man's inhumanity to man is legendary and all-pervasive. The purges in Russia, aggression by Japan against China in the 30's, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Vietnam), waterboarding one person 180+ times just to get revenge on Bin Laden; we have a very violent track record. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Countless daily shootings all over the USA. Who but humans could come up with crucifixion, the iron maiden, or the anal pear? NFL football, anyone? The Big Game is right around the corner.

And I also admit that the high points for me in _The Sopranos_, were always when someone got whacked. Endlessly entertaining otherwise, but peaking at a moment when a mob guy has his head rolled over by an SUV that somehow came out of park at a gas station. We love that stuff.

But on our own terms; it has to be appropriate to the situation, and not gratuitous. I think _The Following _has not yet learned where that line is; either that, or they damned well know where it is and are intent on crossing it regularly.

And cleverness or talent buys you license. By that I mean that if you do this cleverly or with talented writing and direction, the same level of violence seems appropriate where if you do it ham-handedly and without much talent or cleverness, that exact same level of violence automatically becomes inappropriate. Like stand-up comedy, it's all in the delivery, all in the timing as to what is funny and how funny. The joke is the same whether you are Chris Rock who can kill on stage, or Michael Richards who gets killed for what he says on stage. Kevin Williamson or whatever his name is might know how to write and produce teen angst for the CW such as _Dawson's Creek_, but just maybe he's in over his head this time.


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's why remotes have a channel change button.


That's been my point the entire time. If you don't like The Following then don't watch The Following but don't rob us of the opportunity to watch The Following because you don't like it.


----------



## TomCat

RunnerFL said:


> That's been my point the entire time. If you don't like The Following then don't watch The Following but don't rob us of the opportunity to watch The Following because you don't like it.


But that is exactly how TV works. People don't watch a show they don't like; ratings drop; the show is cancelled, and the folks who do like it are "robbed".

Deal with it.

OK, episode 2, not really any better. I do like the cast, but they aren't given much to work with, and the production is hacky and workmanlike at best, far from expert. IMHO, to be successful, a show like this needs to create a mood, an emotional resonance that stays with the viewer after the show is over. They seem to not know how to do that. They are simply filling space between the commercial breaks.

I predict FOX will run out the 15 episodes in order as they planned, but that will be it. If the ratings go down very far they will probably rest it for a couple weeks in February, and if they really go down they will push it to summer as a burn off. _Terra Nova_? Better. _Alcatraz_? A little better. _The Chicago Code_? Much better. All had strong leads and a great cast; all of them got the "mood" element just right; all were cancelled after 1. I don't see much hope for a show that is half as good as any of those. FOX is going in the wrong direction.

_Touch _is another clinker, and I could have predicted that a show by Tim Kring, who let _Heroes _completely disintegrate into ruin, would not have the ability to succeed, and it won't. _Crossing Jordan _must have been a fluke.

The best thing they could have done? Get Trent Reznor to do the music. Now that guy knows how to create a mood. Check _The Social Network _and _The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo _ (a movie whose emotional resonance is still with me months later) if you aren't sure. If nothing else, check Reznor's version of Led Zep classic "Immigrant Song" that opens the movie

One more without improving and I'm out for good.


----------



## MysteryMan

If FOX is smart they'll make it a 15 episode mini-series and end it.


----------



## TomCat

MysteryMan said:


> If FOX is smart they'll make it a 15 episode mini-series and end it.


Done and done. Don't agree? Hide and watch.


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> But that is exactly how TV works. People don't watch a show they don't like; ratings drop; the show is cancelled, and the folks who do like it are "robbed".


Yes, but that's what I'd consider "Natural Selection". When enough people call and complain and the network caves is not "Natural Selection", it's someone else deciding what I should and shouldn't watch based on their beliefs.


----------



## RunnerFL

MysteryMan said:


> If FOX is smart they'll make it a 15 episode mini-series and end it.


That probably would not be a bad thing. It seems like shows tend to get better when they know when the end is.


----------



## TMan

I thought they already planned to run this straight through, with no "weeks off" like most series? I may be confusing that point with an unrelated program, though.


----------



## TomCat

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, but that's what I'd consider "Natural Selection". When enough people call and complain and the network caves is not "Natural Selection", it's someone else deciding what I should and shouldn't watch based on their beliefs.


But that is exactly how TV does NOT work. Very few call and complain, and if they do, it has very little effect.

I wanted enough people to believe in _Leverage _for a 6th and _Alphas _for a 3rd season. But they voted, with their remotes, by not watching 5 and 2, and that is the only reason why there will be no 6 and 3. It had nothing to do with people calling up and moaning about the subject matter, and everything to do with them abandoning the shows. And so, they're gone.

There is the rare occurence where people complain, but it tends to generate buzz more than generate disinterest in the show, and disinterest is exactly what kills shows, and buzz is exactly what gets new viewers to sample them in the first place. Plenty of uproar over the nip slip at the SuperBowl, but has that done anything at all to the ratings other than goose them? No, it hasn't. Howard Stern said the only lesson he took away from that was to not tune away to the Lingerie Bowl during half-time. Howard knows.

If there is an outcry over the violence in _The Following _that can only help it. If there is not an outcry, that only contributes to the level of disinterest. Worrying about something you have no control over indicates that God may decide to give you something to really worry about. Relax; enjoy the show if you like it; watch something else if you don't. The chips will fall where the chips will fall, and you might get a second season, or you might get "robbed". Just stop trying to blame others for what happens, because even though they are why it will happen, they are allowed to watch or not watch. They are doing what comes naturally. Who and how many watch is nature's way, TV's law of the jungle, not how many moan about it on a website. We are not going to suffer through a crap show just to pump up ratings so that you get a second season, after all.


----------



## oldschoolecw

MysteryMan said:


> If FOX is smart they'll make it a 15 episode mini-series and end it.


I thought they said during the intro or maybe it was the credits of the first episode last week that they wanted us to join them for the next 14 weeks


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> But that is exactly how TV does NOT work. Very few call and complain, and if they do, it has very little effect.


I'm sure the people who put together "The Playboy Club" would disagree with you.


----------



## litex2x

MysteryMan said:


> If FOX is smart they'll make it a 15 episode mini-series and end it.


I agree I wasn't quite so impressed with last night's episode. A show like this needs to rely on its writing to capitivate viewers. Last night's episode was boring and predictable.


----------



## TomCat

oldschoolecw said:


> I thought they said during the intro or maybe it was the credits of the first episode last week that they wanted us to join them for the next 14 weeks


They did, but by then maybe the first of 15 was something we had already joined them for. Kevin Bacon claimed 15 on _The Daily Show_, and that they are shooting #11. My best guess is that he probably is close enough to the show to have good information. If I was getting paid 6 figures per episode, I think I would have done the math. There is also something called a "double run", typically used to burn off shows or position remaining eps strategically outside the sweeps weeks; 14 weeks does not translate directly into 14 eps. Having your second hour's leadin being another ep of the same show is a realistic expectation that you may be able to carry over the audience; assuming this gives it event status or gravitas isn't quite as realistic. Many shows start with a 2-ep premiere back to back because if a show is going to tank quickly, the first night will get the highest ratings meaning they can sell more spots. And FOX is fond of this idea; every season of 24 started that way, and they do it regularly with _Bones _and _Hell's Kitchen/Kitchen Nightmares_.


----------



## Reaper

I watched the first episode and LOVED it! I haven't caught up with the rest on my DVR yet.


----------



## jimmie57

Well, the Following just lost one, me.
Definitely do not like it.


----------



## Steve

litex2x said:


> I agree I wasn't quite so impressed with last night's episode. A show like this needs to rely on its writing to capitivate viewers. Last night's episode was boring and predictable.


Add me to the list. Not enough story line for a miniseries or full season, IMO. I think it would have made a fine _Bones_ or _Criminal Minds_ 2-parter, but that's about it.



Spoiler



Not very well-written either, IMHO. That last scene was absurd. First off, they want us believe he's entitled to special privileges, like the books he requested. And then to have the head of the investigation bring him those books, so she could fall under his "spell"? Really?


----------



## The Merg

Steve;3171572 said:


> Add me to the list. Not enough story line for a miniseries or full season, IMO. I think it would have made a fine Bones or Criminal Minds 2-parter, but that's about it.
> 
> * SPOILER *


See, I didn't view it that way...



Spoiler



i saw it that she might actually be involved in the cult. What a great person to have working with you: the lead investigator. I also saw it as possibly that he will need to get messages out to his minions, so maybe they are going to let him and then watch how he does so they could find them.



- Merg


----------



## Steve

The Merg said:


> See, I didn't view it that way...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> i saw it that she might actually be involved in the cult. What a great person to have working with you: the lead investigator. I also saw it as possibly that he will need to get messages out to his minions, so maybe they are going to let him and then watch how he does so they could find them.
> 
> 
> 
> - Merg





Spoiler



Ya. She may be involved with him already. Since they just brought her in to the case and showed her getting up to speed, I assumed her giving him the book was the first contact she had with him. Either way, I'm sure she'll prove to be a 'groupie', and I still think it's pretty absurd he's getting any privileges. A little bit too "convenient" writing, IMHO. It's not like that have to rush to make any points, given the # of episodes they expect to air. :shrug:


----------



## Supramom2000

I agree with Merg's assessment, but I think you are right Steve. Either way, she will turn out to be what you said. And that is a total contrivance.


----------



## phrelin

Unless, of course, it crossed all our minds because it was some kind of subtle intended misdirection.


----------



## Steve

phrelin said:


> Unless, of course, it crossed all our minds because it was some kind of subtle intended misdirection.


Agree. I'm going to give it another week, in case I jumped to the wrong conclusion.


----------



## renbutler

Supramom2000 said:


> I agree with Merg's assessment...


Me too. After seeing the look on her face, I assumed that's what we are SUPPOSED to believe.


----------



## litex2x

Last night's new episode was better than last week's episode.



Spoiler



I guess we were all wrong about her. She gave him the book out of respect.


----------



## TomCat

If you look at ratings for the big 4 for Monday night, each network held its audience through prime. TF held almost all of the audience from _Bones_. That's a good sign for the show. It makes it more likely to air all eps (even though that was pledged by FOX already) and not be moved to Friday or Saturday. It increases odds of a 2nd season marginally. I may not continue to watch, but I am rooting for the show for a couple of reasons, including that Kevin needs to refill the piggy bank after Madoff.


----------



## TomCat

Supramom2000 said:


> I agree with Merg's assessment, but I think you are right Steve. Either way, she will turn out to be what you said. And that is a total contrivance.


I agree as well.

Earlier I posted that I thought it was a good cast. The addition of Annie Parise can only help. But as a viewer I have to ask myself three questions:

1) Do I want to spend an hour a week with these people? Do I like them enough?
2) Do I want to engage in a fantasy that delineates a world that can be this dark?
3) Is the story believable enough or told well enough to allow me to hold on to the suspension of disbelief needed to get engrossed and be entertained?​A good show has to have a cast that is not only good, but that you want to imagine spending time with. The story not only has to be compelling, but one that you are interested in and is not too distateful. The execution has to be well done; story telling is a talent not all producers or writers or directors have.

I can't faithfully answer yes to any of those three questions. Quite obviously this is my opinion. If enough people share an opposite opinion, the show might have a longer shelf life than it probably will on my DVR. Still too early to tell. It could go either way. Right now, I find more drama in the fate of the show's real-life existential dilemma than I do in the show itself.


----------



## Supramom2000

TomCat;3175838 said:


> I agree as well.
> 
> Earlier I posted that I thought it was a good cast. The addition of Annie Parise can only help. But as a viewer I have to ask myself three questions:
> 
> 1) Do I want to spend an hour a week with these people? Do I like them enough?
> 2) Do I want to engage in a fantasy that delineates a world that can be this dark?
> 3) Is the story believable enough or told well enough to allow me to hold on to the suspension of disbelief needed to get engrossed and be entertained?A good show has to have a cast that is not only good, but that you want to imagine spending time with. The story not only has to be compelling, but one that you are interested in and is not too distateful. The execution has to be well done; story telling is a talent not all producers or writers or directors have.
> 
> I can't faithfully answer yes to any of those three questions. Quite obviously this is my opinion. If enough people share an opposite opinion, the show might have a longer shelf life than it probably will on my DVR. Still too early to tell. It could go either way. Right now, I find more drama in the fate of the show's real-life existential dilemma than I do in the show itself.


Well you just articulated my feelings- that I hadn't quite defined yet!! I think I am done with it after last night. Mostly because of just what you said. The only thing I would add is that as a viewer I need some sort of reward. Something hopeful or at the very least the possibility of some small victory.

Last night was too dark and awful for me. I see no light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Steve

litex2x said:


> Last night's new episode was better than last week's episode.


Agree. Just watched it, and having seen it, I feel more optimistic than last week about the show.


----------



## TomCat

Part of the issue might be the times we are in; what else is on. In a world where vampires, zombies, and meth dealers populate our most popular shows, and _Saw _gets to 5 sequels, possibly that emboldens a major network into thinking this is proper or a good idea.

I'm not saying it is improper or a bad idea, and the jury is still out; Zap2it moved it to the "likely to be renewed" list today, but they were high on the last 3 2nd-season FOX dramas which had similar ratings, and look where they are now.

I am OK with violence and dark subjects and suggestive situations. I think if done well they get all the license to exist they need. I don't think TF has earned or can earn that level of license, because the execution is just not top-shelf. They need to pull back, lay off the artificially-generated shock scenes, and find a way to get the audience invested in the characters and the story. Without that, ratings will drop. So far, its been slasher-film successful, and that's about it.

And I think Supramom is right about needing to reward the audience. We haven't even seen a small victory yet (although brutally breaking the guy's fingers was payback, at least); as this story goes along it just seems to get more and more depressing regarding where things can go. We need to see the plan to stop all of this start to gain ground, and quickly. And downplay the Moby Dick aspect, as that is just boring. We don't really care that the lead character has a bad history with this guy and once we know the back story, it's time to move the story forward. Compelling drama happens in the here and now, it doesn't lean on the back story as a crutch.


----------



## phrelin

Last night one bad guy got "offed." Of course, that may not enough reward.

It's dark, but is it really darker than "Criminal Minds?" Or does it just seem that way because it doesn't have a Penelope Garcia weirdly funny character or an attractive couple of actors who brighten the otherwise dark screen?

In any event, it doesn't yet have a comfortable-feeling ensemble cast. Sometimes that takes most of a season and sometimes it never happens.

The ratings are ok. But we won't really be able to tell much until the last week in the February Sweeps and people here are already "iffy" about the show. Remember, when "Dancing with the Stars" and "The Voice" return in mid-March the ratings structure for Monday gets shuffled. Bill Gorman over at Zap2it did move it to the "likely to be renewed" list today, but as he noted he did the same for "Alcatraz" and we all know how that turned out. It's too early to tell if it will be renewed, but it is likely will see the whole season order of 15 episodes.


----------



## Supramom2000

He didn't "get" offed. Thus no reward.

And yes, one light-hearted character would make it less heavy and dark. And yes, it is darker than Criminal Minds because most episodes (no, not all), the bad guy gets caught. All we are seeing on The Following is escalating bad guys. And more of them at every episode.

Note, I didn't say it was more violent, or graphic than any other shows, just more dark and depressing. Criminal Minds and other violent shows do have moments of team camaraderie and fun. Maybe this one will down the road, but the ending video regarding the son, and the situation with the young Asian woman left me NOT wanting more.


----------



## phrelin

Supramom2000 said:


> He didn't "get" offed. Thus no reward.
> 
> And yes, one light-hearted character would make it less heavy and dark. And yes, it is darker than Criminal Minds because most episodes (no, not all), the bad guy gets caught. All we are seeing on The Following is escalating bad guys. And more of them at every episode.
> 
> Note, I didn't say it was more violent, or graphic than any other shows, just more dark and depressing. Criminal Minds and other violent shows do have moments of team camaraderie and fun. Maybe this one will down the road, but the ending video regarding the son, and the situation with the young Asian woman left me NOT wanting more.


I don't disagree with you. I think the dark and depressing thing is what contributed to "Alcatraz" losing viewers. It's as if they moved control of new scripted programming on Fox over to FX which is oriented to a completely different audience and to a different metric for measuring success.

It is sad, in a way, because "Bones" does have that likeable set of characters. You can almost anticipate from the production company/producer/creator credits what the "feeling" of the show will be like. The creator/producer/sometimes-writer of "Bones", Hart Hanson, was involved in "Joan of Arcadia" and "Judging Amy."

Then there's "The Following" brought to you by the folks involved in "The Vampire Diaries", "The Secret Circle" and sometimes "Dexter." Yes they've done other things, but a weirdly dark series from them is not surprising.

I don't remember any TV shows plotted around the analysis of a cult dedicated to violence to others outside the group. The premise of one man mesmerizing from a distance such a varied group of people is "unique" and as we are seeing, even in this show, his control is limited by distance and time. In some respects, we have to believe that these "vampire butterflies" he has released into the world will cause some type of uncontrolled violent storms.

Also, Charlie Manson was a habitual criminal offender, likely mentally ill, and had been imprisoned. What we're being offered here is a pyschopathic intellect like Dr. Hannibal Lecter and usually those types are loners.

So I'm having some problems with the show. I guess I'd like to see an ensemble cast led by Kevin Bacon supported by James Purefoy, Shawn Ashmore, Annie Parisse, and Natalie Zea succeed.

But then I liked "Alcatraz."


----------



## cj9788

Just got done watching all three episodes and all I can say is wow what a fantastic show. Sure it maybe a little dark and the cops always seem to be one step behind the cult but I think that is just good storytelling. And to all those complaining about the 9pm time slot, it is what it is. Just to piss you off even more I would like to point out that it airs airs at 8 central and mountain times so there.


----------



## spartanstew

phrelin said:


> Last night one bad guy got "offed." Of course, that may not enough reward.
> 
> It's dark, but is it really darker than "Criminal Minds?" Or does it just seem that way because it doesn't have a Penelope Garcia weirdly funny character or an attractive couple of actors who brighten the otherwise dark screen?
> 
> In any event, it doesn't yet have a comfortable-feeling ensemble cast. Sometimes that takes most of a season and sometimes it never happens.


I like "darker". Heck, my favorite current show is probably The Walking Dead and it doesn't have weirdly funny character or a particularly attractive cast. But it does have a good ensemble, which I think The Following will eventually have. I also love Dexter, and while it has one or two weirdly funny characters it doesn't have an attractive cast either.


----------



## TomCat

phrelin said:


> ...I think the dark and depressing thing is what contributed to "Alcatraz" losing viewers. ...


Bingo.

Honestly, the cult of acolytes in TF is not all that different from the string of offenders in _Alcatraz _(which I liked also, but mostly for the acting of the 3 main characters). Both involve a team fighting the good fight against a formidable organized evil that they can't yet quantify, and both sort of lean toward a "criminal of the week" format.



phrelin said:


> ...Also, Charlie Manson was a habitual criminal offender, likely mentally ill, and had been imprisoned. What we're being offered here is a pyschopathic intellect like Dr. Hannibal Lecter and usually those types are loners...


 And if Manson was all that compelling, there would have been a string of successful movies or a TV series modeled on him. Maybe the decision was that Manson was too dark, and if so, the villian in TF is also too dark.

Hannibal Lecter is sort of in a category by himself. There were 3 successful movies about the character, one being immensely successful, but then as I keep saying, really good execution can buy you a lot of license and make graphic violence otherwise acceptable.


----------



## Drucifer

I feel like I'm wasting my time watching this thing -- where all the cops are as dumb as bricks. And with all the murders extremely lucky and smart as they move around New York without any problems.


----------



## phrelin

I haven't watched last night's episode, but the the ratings in the demo dropped by about 17% from last week which was down 12% from the week before. In the 50+ crowd, for four weeks the show has seen a 25% decline as follows: 7.2, 6.7, 6.0, and 5.4 million. The issue now is whether to get further invested in it.


----------



## TomCat

It sounds like you are basing your investment in the ratings; as if cancelling it would mean that you wasted time watching the first eps. We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.

As _Lost _taught us, you should probably base whether you want to watch a show on whether you are enjoying yourself. Even if a show is going nowhere, it can be entertaining as encapsulated episodes. It's not like reading a mystery novel and being afraid that someone will rip the book out of your hands before you get to the last chapters, and even in that case, the same Q applies: are you enjoying yourself enough to stay invested? If not, the answer as to what to do is obvious.

That said, I will sometimes put a "watch" embargo on shows I have recorded if I think they might get cancelled, but that applies to shows with little other redeeming value than the overaching story, that I am on the fence about. It is not uncommon for me to hold a whole season of some luke-warm CW show, and end up dumping the entire series when it is obvious that I will never want to watch it. 2 TB HDDs allow that.

On the other hand, I got to ep 4 of _Last Resort _and decided to hold off watching; it looked like it was doomed, which it was. But I had eventually had all 13 eps and started watching it again, because it still was above the Mendoza line, even being cancelled. It often does not matter if the story eventually goes nowhere if it is still a good story otherwise.

The _House of Cards _experiment on Netflix is interesting in that they made all 13 eps available at once, and lots of folks ate that up. That says something for the release model, but it sure does not brighten the dim future of the conventional advertising model.


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.


Where is this guarantee stated?


----------



## TomCat

RunnerFL said:


> Where is this guarantee stated?


Not sure. That is what I understand is pledged by them, along with the _*intent *_(whatever that means) to air them on 15 weeks without a break. I think Kevin Bacon also mentioned this in his _The Daily Show _interview, but memory sometimes doesn't serve, so no guarantee there either.

But there is this new thing called Google that might lead you to a clue. Give that a try.


----------



## TomCat

As many of us had predicted, another dip in the ratings. Trending in a direction they probably did not have in mind. It appears that folks tuned out after _Bones _on FOX (and _The Carrie Diaries _on CW) and moved over to CBS. Me among them, although I don't watch any of those shows anyway, and now including TF.


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> Not sure. That is what I understand is pledged by them, along with the _*intent *_(whatever that means) to air them on 15 weeks without a break. I think Kevin Bacon also mentioned this in his _The Daily Show _interview, but memory sometimes doesn't serve, so no guarantee there either.
> 
> But there is this new thing called Google that might lead you to a clue. Give that a try.


Ahhh, another one of your "facts". You're the one who brought it up, you use Google to find it.


----------



## Hoosier205

The only thing I have found is that Bacon committed to 15 episodes.

http://m.deadline.com/2012/05/fox-picks-up-comedy-ned-fox-is-my-manny-to-series/


----------



## RunnerFL

Hoosier205 said:


> The only thing I have found is that Bacon committed to 15 episodes.
> 
> http://m.deadline.com/2012/05/fox-picks-up-comedy-ned-fox-is-my-manny-to-series/


Yeah, that's what I had heard too. Bacon committing to 15 episodes is a bit different from FOX committing to air 15 episodes though.


----------



## Hoosier205

RunnerFL;3180073 said:


> Yeah, that's what I had heard too. Bacon committing to 15 episodes is a bit different from FOX committing to air 15 episodes though.


I agree. That's simply the workload he agreed to. FOX can pull the plug anytime they wish.


----------



## Supramom2000

When they were really hyping up the show and airing previews, as well as the night of the first episode, the announcer stated it would air new episodes for 15 weeks straight. I'm not saying that constitutes a "promise" by NBC (I learned my lesson from being "promised" I would know who killed Rosie Larsen by the end of season 1). But that is where people are coming up with the idea.


----------



## makaiguy

Supramom2000 said:


> I'm not saying that constitutes a "promise" by NBC


I absolutely, positively guarantee that it does not constitute a promise by *NBC*.


----------



## Galaxie6411

Liked this weeks show but getting a bit tired of the characters being surprised every time a family member or friend/coworker either gets taken hostage or murdered. Goes along with how many times can the cops be betrayed either by one of their own or a "victim" before they wake up. Glad they are rerunning during the weekend because my timer missed 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

RunnerFL said:


> TomCat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure. That is what I understand is pledged by them, along with the _*intent *_(whatever that means) to air them on 15 weeks without a break. I think Kevin Bacon also mentioned this in his _The Daily Show _interview, but memory sometimes doesn't serve, so no guarantee there either.
> 
> But there is this new thing called Google that might lead you to a clue. Give that a try.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, another one of your "facts". You're the one who brought it up, you use Google to find it.
Click to expand...

That is how Fox has been advertising it on air. Their commercials, at least as part of the ad blitz in the beginning, were to air the episodes non-stop. IIRC, the commercials were saying something like it would broadcast non-stop until April.

Of course that doesn't mean much. Regardless of what was in the ad campaign they could still pull it if it isn't making the ratings.

Mike


----------



## phrelin

I'm betting they'll air it. The ratings are declining but not awful yet and what else are the going to do? In March "Dancing with the Stars" comes back on ABC and they certainly do not want to start something new at that point in time.


----------



## TomCat

RunnerFL said:


> Ahhh, another one of your "facts". You're the one who brought it up, you use Google to find it.


But I am not the one who is so worried about this; that would be you. I stopped watching 2 weeks ago. Just to get you up to date, that means I D O N' T C A R E.

And I am not sure why you are having so much difficulty understanding the difference between what is rumored and what is fact. This is W H A T - I - H E A R D, and nothing else, and I never represented it as anything more than that. I was trying to help answer your question by telling you _what I heard_. What part of that is the part you don't get? When something is a fact, I will claim it as a fact. When it isn't, I don't, and I didn't. Sue me.


----------



## spartanstew

TomCat said:


> And I am not sure why you are having so much difficulty understanding the difference between what is rumored and what is fact. This is W H A T - I - H E A R D, and nothing else, and I never represented it as anything more than that.


What you originally wrote sure doesn't seem like you were talking about a rumor or something you heard. Seems like you were stating a fact.



TomCat said:


> We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.


I guess the "pretty much" is your loophole?

In the future, if you'd like others to understand what you mean, it might be better to state "I've heard FOX is committed to airing 15 episodes", or something of that nature.


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> But I am not the one who is so worried about this; that would be you. I stopped watching 2 weeks ago. Just to get you up to date, that means I D O N' T C A R E.
> 
> And I am not sure why you are having so much difficulty understanding the difference between what is rumored and what is fact. This is W H A T - I - H E A R D, and nothing else, and I never represented it as anything more than that. I was trying to help answer your question by telling you _what I heard_. What part of that is the part you don't get? When something is a fact, I will claim it as a fact. When it isn't, I don't, and I didn't. Sue me.


Oh, I'm not worried. I just don't appreciate someone thread crapping with "facts" that they aren't willing to back up. You DID state it as if it was written in stone so we have every right to ask for proof. The phrase "what I hear" was not in your statement of guarantee.

You said:



TomCat said:


> It sounds like you are basing your investment in the ratings; as if cancelling it would mean that you wasted time watching the first eps. We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.


If you stopped watching maybe it's time you stop thread crapping too.


----------



## litex2x

Galaxie6411 said:


> Liked this weeks show but getting a bit tired of the characters being surprised every time a family member or friend/coworker either gets taken hostage or murdered. Goes along with how many times can the cops be betrayed either by one of their own or a "victim" before they wake up. Glad they are rerunning during the weekend because my timer missed 2 weeks ago.


Yeah it'll be interesting to see how they develop the story because there's only so much you can do with it. This would've been better as a movie...


----------



## 1980ws

Supramom2000 said:


> Well you just articulated my feelings- that I hadn't quite defined yet!! I think I am done with it after last night. Mostly because of just what you said. The only thing I would add is that as a viewer I need some sort of reward. Something hopeful or at the very least the possibility of some small victory.
> 
> Last night was too dark and awful for me. I see no light at the end of the tunnel.


My wife and I are probably done too. Same reason. We stopped with Criminal Minds also, too dark for us. I remember the reason I stopped watching Law & Order as it seemed the criminals were always getting off on some technicality and I ended up feeling disgusted. All well done shows mind you, just not my cup of tea.


----------



## TomCat

spartanstew said:


> ...I guess the "pretty much" is your loophole?.


 Exactly. Now you're getting it.

If FOX pledges that they will air 15 eps, then as long as they hold to their promise, we will see them. But I can't be held responsible for them backtracking, so rather than posting it as a Proclamation From On High (as many of you choose to post), I added that disclaimer. I did not do that because I felt I needed to protect myself or any "facts", I did it so you, the reader, would not blindly assume it was a fact. I did it for you. Again, sue me.

We're not exactly under oath here anyway, but that is certainly an appropriate way to indicate that this is what I have heard. I never put myself forward as an expert fortune teller, just as one more person who heard one more thing that might add to the conversation.

If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with that. But you might be able to guess how I feel about whether you do by rereading my last post about how I feel about _The Following_. And you don't have to be current viewer to have an opinion about what you've already seen. I can still comment on that; it's the internet, ferchrissakes. Forums are 95% opinion, and most of them are based on flawed information anyway.



> In the future, if you'd like others to understand what you mean, it might be better to state "I've heard FOX is committed to airing 15 episodes", or something of that nature...


_Of course,_ "in the future", unless you can figure out how to post "in the past". But as much as I appreciate you lecturing me on how you interpret the rules as they apply to everyone else, I will continue to ignore your advice and do whatever the eff I feel like doing. Deal. Comprehension is only partly my responsibility; the reader has to meet me half way and summon up the basic understanding ability that even the pointiest-headed little trolls regularly seem to be able to come up with.

When I post facts I post them AS facts. When I post opinion I post it AS opinion. When I post what I have heard that is unsubstantiated (sorry if that word had more than six letters) I post it AS rumor (although it usually doesn't matter, and most folks post opinion and rumor as if it WERE actually a fact). I am actually very conscientious about that, but it's up to the reader to have enough basic smarts to be able to distinguish the difference. If the simple and basic interpretation of "pretty much" whizzed over your head like the russian meteor, I'm afraid I can't really help you with that.


----------



## Hoosier205

TomCat;3179816 said:


> We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.


I still haven't found anything to suggest that, "We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air." I will keep looking however.


----------



## TomCat

Hoosier205 said:


> I still haven't found anything to suggest that, "We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air." I will keep looking however.


Well, maybe I can help you out a little bit, but don't excoriate me if my information isn't perfect, OK?

IIRC, during the intro to the first ep, I think that is what the announcer said, along with the phrase "over the next 14 weeks", or something to that effect. And I interpret that as "pretty much a guarantee" that this is their intent. They sort of went out on that limb. Also, Kevin Bacon may have also mentioned this in his _The Daily Show _interview; he definitely said 15 eps were planned. I read a lot of stuff; it might have come from Zap2it, or USA Today, or Flipboard, or any number of other sources. No one pays me to keep track.

I also don't have a photographic memory, but that is what I recall, and that is why I tried to add that to the conversation. After all, why would I have imagined that? What would I have to gain by saying something that I DID NOT hear?

But here's a secret: it might just not be the way things play out.


----------



## Hoosier205

TomCat;3182115 said:


> Well, maybe I can help you out a little bit, but don't excoriate me if my information isn't perfect, OK?
> 
> IIRC, during the intro to the first ep, I think that is what the announcer said, along with the phrase "over the next 14 weeks", or something to that effect. And I interpret that as "pretty much a guarantee" that this is their intent. They sort of went out on that limb. Also, Kevin Bacon may have also mentioned this in his The Daily Show interview; he definitely said 15 eps were planned. I read a lot of stuff; it might have come from Zap2it, or USA Today, or Flipboard, or any number of other sources. No one pays me to keep track.
> 
> I also don't have a photographic memory, but that is what I recall, and that is why I tried to add that to the conversation. After all, why would I have imagined that? What would I have to gain by saying something that I DID NOT hear?
> 
> But here's a secret: it might just not be the way things play out.


Kevin Bacon said 15 episodes were planned because 15 episodes is what he agreed to film per season. Still, I am looking for something more along the lines of an actual or implied guarantee. Every network plans for a new series to succeed, but it is something else entirely to guarantee that an entire first season will air.


----------



## Galaxie6411

Wow. Yes before the first Ep. Fox made it a point in the ad to say they are running all 15 episodes straight through. I took note because of so many shows that break the seasons in half with several month breaks and die accordingly and found it funny that Fox was making it a point that they weren't going to do the same.

With the sniping internet age you just about have to put IMO, AFAIK or IIRC before everything to cover your ass from someone incessantly calling you out on everything you are saying as apparently being fact.


----------



## Hoosier205

I've found and watched every promo I can find. It would be interesting to see, I just haven't yet.


----------



## spartanstew

Galaxie6411 said:


> Wow. Yes before the first Ep. Fox made it a point in the ad to say they are running all 15 episodes straight through. I took note because of so many shows that break the seasons in half with several month breaks and die accordingly and found it funny that Fox was making it a point that they weren't going to do the same.
> 
> With the sniping internet age you just about have to put IMO, AFAIK or IIRC before everything to cover your ass from someone incessantly calling you out on everything you are saying as apparently being fact.


Not at all Galaxie, but when you state something most people will wonder where you heard it. Tom's just known for spouting off without following up with anything, just like he did here. Here's the chain of events:



TomCat said:


> We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air.


See, that's the statement that he made.



RunnerFL said:


> Where is this guarantee stated?


Runner asked a simple question.



TomCat said:


> Not sure.


And that was Tom's reply. He makes a statement (as fact), then claims it was something he heard, but still has no idea where he heard it.



Hoosier205 said:


> I still haven't found anything to suggest that, "We are pretty much guaranteed by FOX that 15 eps will air." I will keep looking however.


He is asked again.



TomCat said:


> IIRC, during the intro to the first ep, I think that is what the announcer said,


And there we finally have it. A reply he could have made after he was first asked, but instead he subjects everyone to 4 or 5 more diatribes over the course of several days blaming all the readers for not being able to figure out for ourselves where he picked up that nugget of (supposed) knowledge.

So, you see Galaxie, you don't have to back up everything and put disclaimers on all your statements, but if you do state something (as fact), and someone asks how you gleaned that information, at least have the decency to tell them and not play a cat and mouse game with several members over the course of several days.

Simple, eh?


----------



## cj9788

This thread needs needs more cowbell.....


----------



## RunnerFL

TomCat said:


> IIRC, during the intro to the first ep, I think that is what the announcer said, along with the phrase "over the next 14 weeks", or something to that effect. And I interpret that as "pretty much a guarantee" that this is their intent.


You interpreted incorrectly. In no way is that them saying that they will air every episode. That is them saying they've planned 15 episodes and feel hopeful that all will air. In NO WAY is that a guarantee.


----------



## renbutler

Anyway, the overnight ratings rebounded nicely on 2/18:

1/21: 3.1
1/28: 3.3
2/04: 2.9
2/11: 2.4
*2/18: 2.8*

It was up 55% over Alcatraz the same week last year.


----------



## yosoyellobo

The kid and the mother are starting to annoy me which I suppose is good news.


----------



## litex2x

The only reason I'm still watching is because Kevin Bacon.


----------



## phrelin

RunnerFL said:


> You interpreted incorrectly. In no way is that them saying that they will air every episode. That is them saying they've planned 15 episodes and feel hopeful that all will air. In NO WAY is that a guarantee.





renbutler said:


> Anyway, the overnight ratings rebounded nicely on 2/18:
> 
> 1/21: 3.1
> 1/28: 3.3
> 2/04: 2.9
> 2/11: 2.4
> *2/18: 2.8*
> 
> It was up 55% over Alcatraz the same week last year.


At this point, I feel comfortable we'll see all the episodes. As I noted in the ratings thread it appears that the demo audience is holding at about 85% of the premier and Fox simply doesn't care about the fact that the 50+ audience is down a third. It's demo last night was higher than "Bones."

I just don't see Fox cancelling this show even if episodes 9-12 are way down. An order for a second season will depend on how episodes 9-14 do, but I'm not worrying about that.


----------



## Drucifer

This show has now move into the UNBELIEVABLE.

Who are these people?


----------



## webby_s

Drucifer said:


> This show has now move into the UNBELIEVABLE.
> 
> Who are these people?


True, great show and I will keep watching but really starting to become unbelievable. And I guess we can kinda predict what will come with a transfer of Joe next week. :sure: But I am hooked so I can't stop watching.


----------



## Holydoc

Was a bit disappointed this week. There were just too many followers introduced this week, the wife follower, the local cop, the two guys who took on the swat uniforms. It made my mind stretch a little too much to believe.

Also escapes like "out the backdoor", "drive down roads that supposably were blocked", and "smoke bomb disappearance" were a bit too much.

Still enjoying it, just worried I will start getting annoyed soon.


----------



## MysteryMan

Holydoc said:


> Was a bit disappointed this week. There were just too many followers introduced this week, the wife follower, the local cop, the two guys who took on the swat uniforms. It made my mind stretch a little too much to believe.
> 
> Also escapes like "out the backdoor", "drive down roads that supposably were blocked", and "smoke bomb disappearance" were a bit too much.
> 
> Still enjoying it, just worried I will start getting annoyed soon.


It appears the show's writers have taken the "James Bond" approach by creating a super villain with unlimited resources, compromising the show's credibility. I'm quickly losing interest with this one.


----------



## mrro82

Seems pretty cheap on the writers part to me if they can have anyone suddenly be part of Joe's plan.


----------



## rickclem

Joe has way too many visitors in prison. Put him in solitary for a bit and see if the Followers lose their way. But then I suppose you wouldn't have much of a show.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

rickclem said:


> Joe has way too many visitors in prison. Put him in solitary for a bit and see if the Followers lose their way. But then I suppose you wouldn't have much of a show.


I think the visitors you are seeing are from the past, sort of showing how he set it all up.

When he escaped in the beginning someone should have shot him and there would have been a whole lot of lost people across the country.  But then the show would have never existed.

I think the turning point for me was the local cop being on team Joe. I get the feeling they wrote this show on the fly and didn't know how to get out of the situation.


----------



## Reaper

yosoyellobo said:


> The kid and the mother are starting to annoy me which I suppose is good news.


The mother's hawt.


----------



## Reaper

MysteryMan said:


> It appears the show's writers have taken the "James Bond" approach by creating a super villain with unlimited resources, compromising the show's credibility. I'm quickly losing interest with this one.


I like the show, and will continue watching, even though I agree with you: without showing how many followers there are, the writers can just keep throwing new ones in for plot twists or as cannon fodder. This has a numbing effect, in that how can you invest in these throwaways?


----------



## renbutler

Scott Kocourek said:


> I think the turning point for me was the local cop being on team Joe. I get the feeling they wrote this show on the fly and didn't know how to get out of the situation.


I pegged her as a follower immediately the previous week. And from the reviews I've read, a lot of others pegged her too.


----------



## phrelin

Mystery is not one of the great elements of this show.


----------



## TomCat

rickclem said:


> Joe has way too many visitors in prison. Put him in solitary for a bit and see if the Followers lose their way. But then I suppose you wouldn't have much of a show.


They don't have much of a show now, even _with _all the unbelievable stuff they are asking us to swallow whole.


----------



## lugnutathome

Smokin hawt!

Don "not a basis for a show though" Bolton



Reaper said:


> The mother's hawt.


----------



## Sixto

Season-2 on the way.


----------



## RunnerFL

Sixto said:


> Season-2 on the way.


I can safely start watching Season 1 now.


----------



## TomCat

lugnutathome said:


> Smokin hawt!
> 
> Don "not a basis for a show though" Bolton


She left _Justified _to be in this mess. It will not see a 16th ep, very likely (unless FOX is desperate and has nothing left in the cupboard to replace it next year), while _Justified _probably has 2 or 3 more years in it (maybe more if she had stuck around). But then she probably gets 3 times per ep what she was getting in _Justified_. I first saw her in _Dirty Sexy Money_; snapped my neck around; still hurts.


----------



## sigma1914

TomCat said:


> She left _Justified _to be in this mess. It will not see a 16th ep, ...


It's been renewed.


----------



## TomCat

sigma1914 said:


> It's been renewed.


OK, I get that now. But it will not see a 4th episode where I live.

And that just points out the relative current level of flop sweat at FOX, rather than validates this as any sort of quality show.


----------



## sigma1914

TomCat said:


> OK, I get that now. But it will not see a 4th episode where I live.
> 
> And that just points out the relative current level of flop sweat at FOX, rather than validates this as any sort of quality show.


Oh, so because you don't like it, then it's considered "flop sweat" and not quality?


----------



## spartanstew

TomCat is the end all, be all.


----------



## Drucifer

Season Two! You got to be kidding me. 

I'm not paying much attention, so have they explain how this 'I'll soon as kill ya as look at you' cult get their money for a mansion or helicopter or is it like the warden? Kidnapped and hold a relatives in order to get their way.


----------



## rickclem

Next week . . . aliens join The Following.


----------



## Drucifer

Glad Boston didn't follow the _Following_ script on how to hunt down a mass murderer.


----------



## renbutler

Well, if the manhunt were over in four days, it wouldn't be much of a series...


----------



## MysteryMan

Drucifer said:


> Glad Boston didn't follow the _Following_ script on how to hunt down a mass murderer.


Same here. The show's writers have lost their focus.


----------



## Doug Brott

I had to bail on this one long ago. It just didn't seem like it could go anywhere.


----------



## Steve

I stuck with it, but was hopeful it would all wrap up in a single season. If it's been renewed, I can't imagine them dragging this out for another 12-16 episodes, or whatever the 2014 order is. :nono2:


----------



## Sixto

I gave up a few weeks ago. It wasn't going anywhere.


----------



## trh

ALERT -- Not sure if it is all the East Coast, but the schedule 10:30 PM start of The Following on Fox started at about 10:20. 

EDIT: -- I see the same episode is scheduled for Monday night (1/20/14) at 8 PM eastern and then following episodes at 9 PMs on Mondays (this season Premier "Resurrection" is 1.5 hours long). So if you miss the first 10 minutes tonight, you can catch it tomorrow night.


----------



## prushing

trh said:


> ALERT -- Not sure if it is all the East Coast, but the schedule 10:30 PM start of The Following on Fox started at about 10:20.
> 
> EDIT: -- I see the same episode is scheduled for Monday night (1/20/14) at 8 PM eastern and then following episodes at 9 PMs on Mondays (this season Premier "Resurrection" is 1.5 hours long). So if you miss the first 10 minutes tonight, you can catch it tomorrow night.


it replays on 1/27 and the episode is only 1 hour, for some reason FOX padded the guide data and then decided to start it early


----------



## trh

I was told this AM that Fox had been advertised that the show would start immediately after the game. Which turned out to be 10:18 eastern and 9:18 central. 

And last night my guide had this episode repeating on 1/20, but now it shows it as 1/27. so if you missed the first 12 minutes last night, it will re-air next week.


----------



## MysteryMan

phrelin said:


> Mystery is not one of the great elements of this show.


The season 2 opener revealed Ryan Hardy going rogue. The plot has thickened with a touch of mystery.


----------

