Last Thursday, ratings for Parks and Recreation leaped from the horrifying (3.5 million viewers) to merely the bad (4.4 million viewers), proving what many of the readers here suggested: Airing the season premieres outside of premiere week hurt the NBC sitcom (in fact, all of the NBC Thursday night shows) because many viewers hadn’t even realized the show had returned. The 4.4 million viewers, however, is still not a particularly good number, especially given what was once a prime slot for NBC. Over on The AV Club, Todd VanDerWerff posits a theory for why the ratings for Parks and Rec are so bad:
Did you read that study about how partisanship has increased in the United States? Among other things, the study states that the split between Republicans and Democrats is now worse than whatever animus exists between black and white people and that it grew exponentially between 2008 and 2010—nearly as much as it did between 1960 and 2008! The findings were based on asking people questions like, “Would you be upset if your child married someone of the opposing political party?” and the study concluded that this measure has grown from five percent who would have been upset in 1960 to around 40 percent—50 percent of Republicans and 30 percent of Democrats—in recent years. Obviously, it’s impossible to conclude this is absolutely true from one study, but don’t you feel it in your gut? Don’t you feel that polarization all around you, at your workplace or at school or on your Facebook wall? Politics has become a no-fly zone for many families, something that’s avoided because the divisions between us on these issues are growing intractable.
I’m not sure how much that theory holds water simply because Parks and Rec isn’t a particularly partisan show, although I suspect many who have not watched it have the perception that it is a partisan show. I like to think, however, that the show represents the full spectrum of government: Leslie is the idealist; Ben is the fiscally responsible one; Ron is the libertarian; Chris represents government efficiency; Jerry represents the entrenched bureaucracy; Donna represents bureaucratic laziness; and Tom represents government waste. You might even be able to argue that Ann represents special interests.
Point being: The ratings are bad. How bad? Remember Judd Apatow’s brilliant Freaks and Geeks, the show that was canceled midway through its first season? It’s available on Netflix Instant now (watch it if you have not; you won’t be disappointed), Over on Entertainment Weekly, Judd Apatow and Paul Feig were interviewed about Freaks and Geeks, and Feig noted a certain irony in its ratings.
It felt like at that time in television, people weren’t looking for that tone, sadly. The irony is that we had like 7 million loyal viewers, which today would be a middling hit, but it was just game show mania, so people were not in the mood to watch that kind of thing. We got cancelled for a game show. We got replaced by Twenty One.
Twenty One? Ouch. Reading The AV Club’s theory on P&R’s ratings and the Feig quote in the same morning got me thinking: How would other brilliant shows that were canceled to soon stack up against the ratings of Parks and Recreation? If they were released today, would they stand a better chance of surviving than Parks and Recreation or would they suffer the same overall ratings erosion that the rest of network television has suffered? Either way, it’s interesting to think about.
Here are 10 shows with more viewers than Parks and Recreation.
Parks and Recreation — 4.4 million viewers, 70 episodes aired so far
1. Freaks and Geeks — 7 million viewers (13 episodes aired)
2. Sports Night — 11 million viewers (45 episodes aired)
3. Twin Peaks — 8 million viewers (30 episodes aired)
4. Firefly — 4.8 million viewers (14 episodes aired)
5. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip* — 7 million viewers (22 episodes aired)
6. Pushing Daisies — 6.1 million viewers (22 episodes aired)
7. Undeclared — 7.3 million viewers (13 episodes aired)
8. My So Called Life — 12.1 million viewers (19 episodes aired)
9. Wonderfalls — 5 million viewers (13 episodes)
10. Andy Barker P.I. — 5.4 million viewers (6 episodes)
(*Greatness debatable, but I drink the Sorkin Kool-Aid)
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/4006/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/andy-dwyer-reacts-150x150.gif)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/patton-oswalts-star-wars-filibuster-animated1-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/offerman-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/ron-tiki-mask-150x150.jpg)
Sooooooooo you’re saying that NBC should cancel Parks and Rec out of fairness?
*sniffles, pours can of pie filling on the ground for Pushing Daisies*
Pushing Daisies was just the best. My goal in life is to buy a cafe shaped like a giant pie whilst I go around solving murders and ultimately write a pop-up book based off those adventures. Also, is there a better love story that is as uplifting and heartbreaking than The Pie Maker and Chuck?
I’m amazed that it had so few episodes. I thought it was more like 40.
Watched the first episode and thought it was really good but I felt I did not need to ever watch it again.
Sports Night was great because it stayed away from politics. Otherwise it’s just sorkin yelling “LOOK AT HOW FUCKING SMART I AM!”
Um, isn’t that every single episode of anything Sorkin’s ever done?
Good point. I hate smart TV writers.
It helps for said TV writer to actually be intelligent, instead of thinking himself intelligent.
Hmm, were any of these shows on after the use DVRs and Hulu became prominent? I’m wondering if NBC is taking that into account. (Call me a Leslie, I mean optimist.)
Pushing Daisies and Studio 60 were firmly in DVR times, because that’s how I watched them.
Yeah, those were both post-DVR. But I remember JUST getting a DVR when Studio 60 started, because I distinctly remember getting fed up and cancelling it.
But I don’t think that DVRs, VOD, and stuff like Hulu was nearly as widespread at that time.
DVRs were available, but not the staple they are today.
studio 60 is not up for debate, it was terrible.
The funny thing is, at the time, everyone thought that the show would be a hit and that 30 Rock–which debuted the same season–would be the afterthought cancellation. “Terrible” is a strong word though.
I liked the episode where the stupid people from the Midwest had never heard of Who’s on First. Their showbiz son gave them a copy to play on their gramophone back on their farm in the Midwest. I’m sure they enjoyed it, assuming electricity has reached their farm.
Meanwhile I’m pretty sure their other son was standing in the middle of Afghanistan or something.
The pilot of Studio 60 was brilliant. Conversely, I remember 30 Rock being very weak in its pilot. Both shows inversely got better and worse from what I remember that year.
@Spacemonkey: Perfect. Even Sorkin couldn’t have summarized his life’s work better, although he would have had the parents living in their car on the back edge of the farm they used to own before, you know, Bush.
@Spacemonkey: My wife from Wisconsin had never heard of Who’s On First before that episode. So, you know, there are people in the world who don’t know Abbott and Costello.
Though I will agree, that line about Afghanistan was easily the worst line Sorkin ever wrote.
Not sure if DVR, torrents, apple etc are somehow added to or adjust today’s ratings. But If not I would assume a 7mil even 6-8 yrs ago would equal a 4ish today
Miss you hard-chargin’ party girl exec Jordan McDeere….
Add SOUTHLAND to the list. Amazing show that is now on TNT.
Southland is definitely a great show. I don’t watch it enough.
Dustin, I think you have the wrong numbers. The 4.4 million viewers were preliminary. TVbytheNumbers has the final viewership at 3.27 million.
Isn’t it just as valid to ask what kind of ratings Parks and Rec would’ve gotten 10-15 years ago?
It is not just Hulu and DVR’s that are throwing off the numbers most of those shows also predate a time that Cable actually became worth watching. Hell, while “My So Called Life” was airing the FX Network was a stupid house airing tv shows from their different rooms. In the early 2000′s Cable was a wasteland lacking quality tv shows with the exception of HBO. Then shows 5 years ago were caught in a time when half of the top 20 tv shows in 2007 were American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
Not to be too pedantic, but Firefly only had 12 episodes to air during it’s original run on Fox. At least in most markets in the US that was the case.
Wonderfalls only had 9 episodes air as well.
Studio 60 was not great because it had one glaring flaw: the show within the show wasn’t funny.
I remember the buildup to the first “reinvented” sketch too. I was expecting to be blown away. As Jack Handey said, “if you’re watching a play within a play, get ready for the ride of your life”. Well, I was ready. And what did they do? They did a Gilbert and Sullivan song–the same one done by David Hyde Pierce on SNL ten years before.
Then there was the game show sketch. Good god, that one was painful.
Yeah, it was hard to take a show about a late-night sketch show seriously when the few parts they showed were just so painfully unfunny.
True. Yet every week we’re treated to a rundown of SNL…
That’s EXACTLY where they lost me, as well, Ira.
That wasn’t even remotely the point of the show. To compare it to other Sorkin series, that’d be like saying The West Wing wasn’t a good show because the bills they presented to the House weren’t written well enough. They rarely showed any of the actual sketches, and often only showed snippets when they did, specifically because the sketches themselves weren’t the focus. The focus was on the behind-the-scenes elements.
You also have to consider the context; wrapping comedy sketches ala SNL in the middle of a dramedy replete with relationship issues and often agonizing business decisions is jarring; it’s all but set-up so that we won’t view the sketches as something particularly funny, but rather as the product of the hard work going on elsewhere, which we can then dissect and consider in much the same ways as the main characters who are in the business of producing them.
Notice that a show like 30 Rock, with the same premise, similarly almost never shows any of their sketches, and when they do, they’re almost never particularly funny, both because the joke is that their show is supposed to be terrible, but also because it takes us out of what is actually a backstage comedy first and foremost. Watching Studio 60 for the sketches is like watching 30 Rock for the sketches, only even more ridiculous because it’s an hour-long drama as opposed to a half-hour absurdist sitcom.
People give Studio 60 a lot of flak for being a comedy show that wasn’t funny. But that’s not what it was ever meant to be: It’s a show about the making of comedy, which can often be very much unfunny. Do you know any comedians? All of my comedian friends are depressed, intellectually frustrated, often extremely awkward people. A realistic show about their lives really wouldn’t be funny. Throw in the business of running a TV show and adult relationships on top of that, and you’ve got a show that really was never supposed to be an uproarious laugh riot. Which is exactly why I loved it: It’s neurotic and frustrating when it’s appropriate, funny without beating us over the head with its jokes, and a fairly realistic look at the lives of funny people when they’re at work, which is to say, trying desperately to make other people laugh so they can feel good about themselves and their lives.
@Christian
Nice 30 Rock comparison. Exactly what I was thinking. I don’t watch 30 Rock and leave unsatisfied because the show within the show wasn’t funny. Not the point.
Everyone will hate me for saying this. After hearing all the hype, and having everyone tell me to watch Freaks and Geeks on Netflix. I went in expecting the most brilliant show ever. I was sorely disappointed with the first episode. So I gave 2 more episodes a shot and although it improved, I was still disappointed.
TL;DR: Freaks and Geeks is over rated.
Trolls got to keep on trolling. Your opinion is invalid.
You also have to consider how expensive it is to produce the other shows on the list. I’m sure there are other variables my alcohol-soaked brain refuses to consider.
Thanks for making me sad.
If this whole thing is based on Neilsen ratings then I call shenanigans.
I don’t know how to find such information…but surely Better Off Ted belongs on this list, yes?
Wait…nevermind. Better Off Ted’s ratings were abysmal. Withdrawn.
Better Off Ted and Terriers demonstrate that the show can be excellent, but as long as the title stinks, nobody will watch it.
No debate: Studio 60 was awesome, and people who don’t like it are dickfaces.
I really liked that one episode of Sorkins show where the ditzy female character screwed up something major, and everyone covered for her. That’s totally realistic in the real world. It’s not like everyone would be all “Fire that stupid bitch!” or anything you’d see in the fake world.
AV club’s theory is stupid
It could be the money put into those shows they don’t get enough back. It’s not all about raitings If they still get advertisers who cares about the ratings
I’d say that list is split between large budget and the pre-”TEENS AND TWEENS MATTER” era.