Supergirl Renewed

To the surprise of no one, Supergirl has been renewed for a sixth season, alongside Batwoman, Flash, Legends of Tomorrow and Black Lightning. No word yet as to whether or not the potential series Green Arrow & the Canaries has been picked up, and we probably won't know until after the backdoor pilot airs on 1/21.



ew.com/tv/2020/01/07/cw-renewals-2020-20...8IO4zwqurpBTgpldI06g

This isn't surprising at all tbh.

Many called Batwoman being renewed, even before it aired.  And Supergirl hanging on, like Batwoman, is merely ideological at this stage.

If it was based on ratings, both these shows would be gone, considering both have been on a downward spiral for a while now (Batwoman has lost half its audience in 9 episodes).

Peace.

/K

kikass2014,

With all due respect, "ideology" has absolutely nothing to do with this. The only ideology in Hollywood is the unrepentant quest for more money. If the show has been renewed, it can only mean that the studio believes there is an audience for it, that there is nothing better to do with the time slot, and that advertisers are willing to sponsor it. So please stop with the conspiracy theories.

With all due respect, "ideology" has absolutely nothing to do with this......the studio believes there is an audience for it.......So please stop with the conspiracy theories.

If you choose not too see that, that is ofc your prerogative.  But to illustrate my point, lets take Batwoman for example.  Please, tell me then, who is this audience?

Rotten Tomatoes:

Critics = 76% (41 critics)  Audience = 12% (7546 responses)

( www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/batwoman/s01 )

Metacritic:

Meta Score = 60

User Score = 1.6

( www.metacritic.com/tv/batwoman )

Batwoman Ratings so far for Season 1:

tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/batwoman-season-one-ratings/

Is it still a conspiracy if I am showing evidence?

Likewise, with all due respect, I'm not planning on making this a debate, but if you call me out, I will respond.

Peace.

/K

Whatever the reason for the renewal I'm happy to hear this. Whateveryou might think of them they are mainstream female lead superhero shows (plus there's
a lot of strong female characters on Legends) which can only be a good thing in
normalising the idea of superwomen.

veggicidal wrote: kikass2014,

With all due respect, "ideology" has absolutely nothing to do with this. The only ideology in Hollywood is the unrepentant quest for more money. If the show has been renewed, it can only mean that the studio believes there is an audience for it, that there is nothing better to do with the time slot, and that advertisers are willing to sponsor it. So please stop with the conspiracy theories.

I agree on the point that it's all about money, with ideology simply a very effective tool to draw the viewers they want, either to the show proper or to the social media buzz about the show. CW isn't in the business of bleeding money for ideology. Given what these shows cost, they can't afford to be shoveling money out the door. Also, its equally obvious that ratings don't equal money. If the shows are renewed, it has to be because the advertising revenue from these shows is more positive than what CW feels it could earn from anything else that they could plug into that space.

But that does beg a question:  Why do advertisers spend serious coin on shows that have such poor ratings?  The corporations that buy the ads are not in the business of public charity either. They expect a positive return on money spent on advertising or they'd stop spending it. The folks who analyze such things are very savvy about connecting viewers, shows, social media and advertising. 

To me, it says things are not as we see it, but I remain completely confident that positive money is flowing to corporations because they are advertising on these shows,

My personal guess is that the real money is being made from ads and other revenue from social media, and these shows generate traffic on those platforms (doesn't matter if it's positive or negative).  Clicks pay, not opinions and obviously not ratings. The model for how this part of the economy works isn't straight forward, but I'm convinced its strongly ceapitalistic in the end. 

If I'm right, it says that a show with only a small viewership who are "influencers" on social media could potentially make money for the advertisers, who then spend enough on ads to support shows that drive that whole process so that CW can make a profit. If I'm right, then the gap between providing entertaining content and idealogical portrayals that drive consumer spending could get even wider. 

(And while SWM doesn't make money by the click, this kind of discussion on a platform that does would earn money, regardless what side of the issue you are on. And the more eyeballs anywhere in the system -- and not necessarily on the show itself -- the more money is earned.)


Shadar

At the risk of sounding antagonistic, which if I am, I appolgise in advance, but why is it so hard to accept that these shows are renewed on ideological principles?

Its plain to see that in the past couple years or so, there has been a clear push, among other things, of "girl power".  We can all agree on that I am sure.  Whether that is a good thing or not, is another debate.

As such, it would clearly put the CW in a bad light if it was to cancel TWO female-led shows, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, it costs money to make the shows, but thb, the budget for these is shoestring compared to other shows, and not as much as you may think.

Some of the FX shots on Supergirl are atrocious.  People at home on their PC's, with AfterFX and a couple plugins can produce better.

The Flash probably has the biggest budget of them all, being the flagship, but even those FX are fairly easy to produce, and cheap.

The cinematography on them isn't stellar either, probably due to having a limited amount of days to shoot each episode.

I do think you make a good point Shadar in that it does beg the question of why these corps spend money on shows with such low ratings.  Could it be it doesn't cost them as much as other shows?  May be.  I don't know tbh.

Is it to drive people to social media and generate revenue there?  Possibly.  But with such low ratings, and the fact that not everyone who watches these shows is going to run to those platforms, how much does this actually generate?

This is why I am inclined to believe it is ideological.   Especially when you look at the newest show in the stable - Batwoman.  That is purely ideological.  No one gives a hoot on that show about good story-telling, characters, acting.  It truly is abysmal.  All each episode is, is a virtue signal of some kind or other.

If the show was well-written, well-acted, had interesting stories and themes, as well as characters, no one would be saying anything.  But 12% AUDIENCE score on RT, and 1.6 on Metacritic is VERY telling.  Especially when the critics score for these is the opposite - i.e. high.  This is telling because it is clear that critics just shill for these shows (and Hollywood in general), given the recent rise in disconnect between critic scores and audience scores - see Joker as another prime example.

Whats the connection?  The critics have the same agenda as the show producers.

Whether you choose to accept this argument or not is up to you ofc, I'm not here to change anyones mind.  If you like Batwoman, or still watch Supergirl and enjoy it, good for you.

But there is no way you are telling me these shows were renewed because they are good.

If they were, people would be watching them  Which they clearly are not, as evidenced by the numbers.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote: At the risk of sounding antagonistic, which if I am, I appolgise in advance, but why is it so hard to accept that these shows are renewed on ideological principles?

Its plain to see that in the past couple years or so, there has been a clear push, among other things, of "girl power".  We can all agree on that I am sure.  Whether that is a good thing or not, is another debate.

As such, it would clearly put the CW in a bad light if it was to cancel TWO female-led shows, wouldn't you agree?

Sure, it costs money to make the shows, but thb, the budget for these is shoestring compared to other shows, and not as much as you may think.

Some of the FX shots on Supergirl are atrocious.  People at home on their PC's, with AfterFX and a couple plugins can produce better.

The Flash probably has the biggest budget of them all, being the flagship, but even those FX are fairly easy to produce, and cheap.

The cinematography on them isn't stellar either, probably due to having a limited amount of days to shoot each episode.

I do think you make a good point Shadar in that it does beg the question of why these corps spend money on shows with such low ratings.  Could it be it doesn't cost them as much as other shows?  May be.  I don't know tbh.

Is it to drive people to social media and generate revenue there?  Possibly.  But with such low ratings, and the fact that not everyone who watches these shows is going to run to those platforms, how much does this actually generate?

This is why I am inclined to believe it is ideological.   Especially when you look at the newest show in the stable - Batwoman.  That is purely ideological.  No one gives a hoot on that show about good story-telling, characters, acting.  It truly is abysmal.  All each episode is, is a virtue signal of some kind or other.

If the show was well-written, well-acted, had interesting stories and themes, as well as characters, no one would be saying anything.  But 12% AUDIENCE score on RT, and 1.6 on Metacritic is VERY telling.  Especially when the critics score for these is the opposite - i.e. high.  This is telling because it is clear that critics just shill for these shows (and Hollywood in general), given the recent rise in disconnect between critic scores and audience scores - see Joker as another prime example.

Whats the connection?  The critics have the same agenda as the show producers.

Whether you choose to accept this argument or not is up to you ofc, I'm not here to change anyones mind.  If you like Batwoman, or still watch Supergirl and enjoy it, good for you.

But there is no way you are telling me these shows were renewed because they are good.

If they were, people would be watching them  Which they clearly are not, as evidenced by the numbers.

Peace.

/K

While I agree that the ideology is one of the enabling factors for the shows success (as measured by advertiser revenue), it is equally clear to me that advertisers are spending money on these shows because they believe it will increase their overall profit. The essential nature of capitalism isn't being suspended here for some perceived societal benefit.  

The question remains, why does promoting the ideology of these low-rated shows make money for both CW and their advertising partners? This isn't State-Funded television. These are all for-profit companies. 

I further suspect that it ties into the fact that the vast majority of Millennials and Gen-Z agree with the ideology that's being presented, and that's who the advertisers need to secure as customers for the long-term. This is the future of America after we Boomers and Gen-Xers are no longer around to spend our money. Corporations and media companies are combining to make some kind of profit off that now, and positioning themselves for the long-term to make more in the future. 

You gotta love capitalism, given it cares nothing about ideology and only profits. 

Shadar

  

Batwoman is the second highest rated show on the network, Supergirl is 4th.

tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/cw-2019-20-season-ratings/

I'm still just thrilled to have a Supergirl show being produced. I mean six seasons - wow. If only the new Wonder Woman had made it past the pilot.

CJS wrote: Batwoman is the second highest rated show on the network, Supergirl is 4th.

tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/cw-2019-20-season-ratings/

I agree Batwoman should not be dismissed but I would argue those numbers are a little misleading given the premier was sure to do at least okay, and the crossover was going to bring good numbers. With only 9 episodes that's messing with the average a fair bit.

shadar wrote:
But that does beg a question: Why do advertisers spend serious coin on shows that have such poor ratings? The corporations that buy the ads are not in the business of public charity either. They expect a positive return on money spent on advertising or they'd stop spending it. The folks who analyze such things are very savvy about connecting viewers, shows, social media and advertising.

Shadar

Having had a chance to do contract work on a major US Cable providers software and learning the ins and outs I can tell you that they put a lot of effort into figuring out how to price the time slots and local advertising for affiliates is very important. I get the feeling this is the CW model as you see more "low brow/local" ads on CW. Having also worked closely with sales teams and seeing how they work with marketing departments... ...I'll just say there is a lot of art and mostly pseudo science going on in the marketing department of even medium to rather large corporations. I'd even argue the cable providers do the work to do the metrics and the larger corporations are just "buying impressions" when it comes to TV ads and, yes, even online ads to a certain degree.

I liked Random321 explanation on how ad slots were sold.

No one's really done the "given ratings X and ad slots how much money does Batwoman generate vs cost to create?"  (for one i'm pretty sure we can't get those #'s, only estimate them off ratings, and also, we probably don't really know how much they're spending to make the show.)

I know that there is ideology in picking content, and maybe a bit for questionable calls -- but CW would cancel both if they didn't make money.  it's that simple.  I also don't really trust ratings sites -- they have been proved to be easily skewed by people with strong opinions who brigade the services.  (I can tell from Twitter there are a lot of honest fans of Batwoman.  Actual people not bots, or people faking ... but it's also anecdotal so I wouldn't make much of it other than to says fans of the show exist.)

As for backlash, they'd just point at the ratings and say "it didn't make money and cost to much to produce" and then every rational person gets dejected and walks away -- and you can't make irrational people happy anyway. So if the the ratings/$$ were that bad they didn't make money, they'd have a simple out.

Also, it's not just ad sales from ratings.

It's foireign markets, DVD sales, merchandise, and streaming rights.   I don't think we have any way of judging the income stream of those.  Some of that is forecasting, which is a giant guessing game, and also will be driven by ideology.  but I'm pretty sure by now they know what those #'s are for Supergirl.  I'm pretty sure for Batwoman they know foregin market and streaming income, and have some merchandising $$ too.

i.e. you going to have to go a long way to getting me to think that this isn't a "we are making money" decision from CW where ideology is just one of the many factors but $$ is the key to believeing that ideology is the driving factor keepign the show on the air.

Also, it's about comic books, but this is a good article:  www.bleedingcool.com/2018/01/16/marvel-n...west-selling-comics/

It mentions that foreign sales, electronic sales, trade sales through bookstores and the scholastic market are all REALLY luctrative and that people who only look at the comic book sales and wonder why Squirrel Girl wasn't canceled long ago .... they don't realize how well it does in the other markets (many of which outside industry people, even comic book store owners, do not have access too the #s  or only get them if they really go looking as they aren't in the main #'s.

www.bleedingcool.com/2018/01/16/marvel-n...west-selling-comics/

As I said above, I'd be very surprised if those alterntive income streams (esp in the modern market) weren't pretty significant for a TV Show.  Using Firefly as an example i know from interviews that the Serenty movie was greenlit based on DVD sales.  The theory is that if everyone who bought the Firefly Box set bought the DVd to the movie, then the DVD sales would pay for the movie, meaning it wouldn't matter what it did in the box office, it'd make money.  It did not do well in the theaters, which is why more weren't made -- but it was a pretty safe bet to get money back.  They just don't make more movies that only get their money back.

Let's make this simple, I prefer growth. That's how you run a business.

I watched season one and parts of season two.  

Glad they renewed it but only because someone some day will make a compilation of the super feats and condense each season down to maybe 15 minutes of action.  

I'm not the target audience.

AuGoose wrote: That what I"ve seen of Supergirl doesn't excite me doesn't mean I'm not glad that the people who do like it are getting served. There's really no way it can be doing awareness of the genre harm. There are absolutely up and coming creators out there looking at these programs and thinking "Oh man, I can top THAT..." And if it inspires someone to make something more to my tastes or an executive to take a risk on the next heroes-on-TV thing, awesome. We all win. The great thing about living in the golden age of storytelling is it's far from a zero-sum game.

Gotta admire those who always look at the silver lining. 

But it looks like what you're saying is that these shows serve more as a cautionary tale rather than inspiration.

Sarge395 wrote: I watched season one and parts of season two.  

Glad they renewed it but only because someone some day will make a compilation of the super feats and condense each season down to maybe 15 minutes of action.  

I'm not the target audience.

Same. They can't make the show and Supergirl interesting on her own. They had to go woke.  Batman and Spider-Man are definitely weaker than Superman but they're as great as he is. I saw this coming and thought I might be wrong (same with Capt. Marvel), I wasn't.