Week three linkspam

[jae]

Keri Russell (Elizabeth) did an interview with Collider about the second season.

Matthew Rhys (Philip) did an interview with Esquire about the second season and especially "Cardinal" (202).

The Americans gets a mention in this piece by Think Progress's Alyssa Rosenberg about why we keep having the same debates about prestige television dramas. (Rosenberg is one of the show's unapologetic critic cheerleaders.)

Bad news about the season two ratings: they slid between 201 and 202. But on the other hand, FX executive John Solberg tweeted that the show is up a ridiculous 94% in "time-shifted viewing" (that's up from an already very high 81% for the season premiere).

Another piece about the "spy training day" to which the show invited journalists has come out, this time by the UK's This Is Fakediy.

U.S. magazine Mother Jones has a piece about the Middle Eastern and Central American politics that form the backdrop for some of the plotlines for season two.

The critic at the Salt Lake Tribune who likes the show argues that Putin makes it harder to root for the two Soviet leads.

Some fans did some research into whether Raiders of the Lost Ark was actually still playing in early 1982, and apparently the writers did their homework.

Attention icon makers! screencapped.net has a treasure trove of high-quality images for you to work with, and here's another at grande-caps.net.

And finally, Keri Russell made a brief appearance on Jimmy Kimmel along with the infamous "Felicity wig" (video, just over 3 minutes).

Comments

Ratings again

[jae]

I added a link for a tweet from FX executive John Solberg, who was touting the huge bump in time-shifted viewing even from last week. Apparently people are still watching the show in droves, they're just not watching it as it airs. Is there something about the show that provokes that, I wonder?

I have to say I'm encouraged not just by those numbers, but by an FX exec tweeting about them. :)

-J

Re: Ratings again

[soupytwist]

I'm wondering how many of those are foreigners who are watching, er, differently legally... but I mostly hope it gets us season 3!

Re: Ratings again

[jae]

As far as I know, that measure only measures American viewers who a) recorded it onto their PVR (or whatever three letters they use for that device down there *g*), and b) watched it within three days of airing. If you're not American and didn't do BOTH of those things, you're not counted.

-J

Re: Ratings again

[soupytwist]

Ah, ok, there isn't a version of streaming from the Fox website or anything.

Go go American viewers with the three-letter recording thingies!

Re: Ratings again

[treonb]

They actually block their website outside the US. Grrrr.

I think they also check +7 viewing.

Re: Ratings again

[katiac]

The only thing I can think of is maybe it's not a show that appeals to the whole household, so people tape it and watch it later? It does touch on controversial things. You could be put off by the sexual content... or the violence... or the Russian-ness... (various complaints I've come across.) It's not like "Modern Family" or whatever where although it might not be your particular favorite show, there's no reason you couldn't have it on the TV when your kid walked through the room. Much as I find the editing in the sex scenes usually perfectly timed in their execution, you can go from a touching father/children scene straight to Martha and her "Shoot yourself into me, Clark!" moment, which could make it awkward if there's anyone in the household who isn't comfortable with that sort of thing.

Crossing fingers now for a third season. (And many more.)

Re: Ratings again

[jae]

Oh, that is a thought. I actually personally know at least two couples where only one of them likes the show and the other one hates it, so they have to be sure to schedule viewings around that. I bet that's a large part of it.

I honestly don't know how much the PVR viewings count, because I think execs know that people aren't always watching the ads. But I think it must count for something, or else they wouldn't be measuring that.

-J

Re: Ratings again

[sistermagpie]

Now I'm just curious to know why somebody would hate it!

Why people might dislike the show

[jae]

There are a lot of reasons that people might hate the show, actually. Katia named a few above. And as we know from the podcast we talked about in my journal, some people just can't get past the "they're Russian spies who do bad things" part.

The "hate" half of the one couple I personally know is of the "it's not escapist fantasy" sort--he tried the show for me but personally doesn't particularly enjoy shows that take place in our world. The hater half of the other couple (you and I have talked about this one) got as far as "COMINT" and quit watching because she loathed Philip so much. It's a hard show to sell to people on any generic level because there are so many different things that can push different kinds of people's buttons.

-J

Re: Why people might dislike the show

[sistermagpie]

She loathed Philip? Oh, was this the idea that Philip was sexist? Right.

I think I was confused about somebody hating something because I was thinking I could understand not being interested in the show, but I wondered what somebody watching it would be being furious about. But it sounds like in that case it's just a case of "this show isn't for me" sort of thing rather than ranting. As opposed to the sexist thing, which to me, honestly, seems like kind of projecting something onto it because it accidentally looked similar to a second.

Re: Why people might dislike the show

[katiac]

Oh okay, I was reading all these response and trying to figure out how someone could loathe Philip, but I guess if you took that episode as sexist rather than Philip has a strong need to protect his family members that doesn't always manifest in reasonable ways, it would be possible. I actually read a lot more extreme dislike towards Elizabeth (like reading other people's responses on other sites) and can't really recall having found one that targeted Philip before. I think both characters are the sort that if you don't dig in and try to understand what's not being said overtly about what they're doing and what's driving it below the surface, they're easy to misunderstand and then to dislike.

Re: Ratings again

[treonb]

I honestly don't know how much the PVR viewings count

They do count, because broadcasters realize that people are moving to a 'watch when it's convenient' mode of watching. The Americans might be an extreme case, but for all shows, there's published ratings for +3 day and +7 day viewing.

As for skipping ads - the broadcasters are very much aware that the world is changing around them, and they need to figure out how to change with it. There was actually one show I remember posted all ads to YouTube, and people watched it for some reason. But there are other ways to solve this problem.

Re: Ratings again

[thesquawk]

I'd guess it's the time of airing - 10pm is pretty late especially for those who are getting going early the next morning and especially again if you have to get ready for bed etc. after the show.

Also as was mentioned below... may not appeal to the whole household. I'm certainly not watching this with my parents around! :P

Re: Ratings again

[jae]

It's actually only 10pm for a couple of the time zones in North America (I am one of the lucky ones who gets to watch it earlier!). But yeah, that could certainly influence whether people watch it on the night of airing, or wait until the next day.

-J