Broadchurch vs Gracepoint, and why TV Ratings Suck
I finished Broadchurch. And I'm excited for Season 2. Though I have no idea where they're going with it.
Diehard Broadchurch-only fans are probably going to lynch me for this but comparing the two, IMHO, Gracepoint was still slightly better. Look, I know, most British shows that get brought to America get stupid despite landing bigger budgets. And that's because our networks don't really care about good content. It just better be worth the advertising, or it gets nixed. The original creators usually have little or no control. Gracepoint was different. It was almost identical (which is a good and bad thing).
But the changes that happened made for a much, much more complex and interesting ending. They added to it without it feeling inflated, made it a little more conflicted, more detailed, and more dramatic. The endings made all the difference -- Gracepoint begged for another season. Broadchurch did not. It was satisfyingly wrapped-up.
*Gets on Soapbox* And yes, I'm pissed that Fox killed another series I liked prematurely because they still rely on faulty, inaccurate, and archaic viewing metrics like Nielsen ratings for their business decisions.
And yet American Idol is in it's 14th season.
What's that, D.I. Hardy?
I know, right?!
Live television ratings should be judged by something more accurate, modern, timely, and widely available to everyone, not just a select group of households. Say, I dunno, Social Media? #getaclue #welcometothe21stcentury
Look at what Doctor Who did this past season: they created a website for people to visit during the commercials, http://whoknowswho.tv.
It was a trivia game, you had to sign on with Facebook, and it was "unlocked" during the commercials. BRILLIANT marketing and measuring tactic! Keeps viewers engaged with your brand, measures real-time data, it's more accurate, and allows for you to follow up with some marketing later.
