"Castle" debuts to strong, but mixed numbers.
Nathan Fillion's new show "Castle" premiered with 11.6 million viewers.
The "mixed" numbers part comes in when you factor that "Dancing With the Stars" had a 22.5. So "Castle" only kept half of the "DWtS" viewers - or you can interpret it like I do: That most people who watch Nathan Fillion are not "DWtS" watchers.
ETA: Zap2it is posting that ABC won their target 18-49 demo and their numbers for "Castle" say 7.7/13.
March 10 2009
© 2002 - 2009 - WHEDONesque.com
(e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.

Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.


Spacegirl3200 | March 10, 21:01 CET
For a show that is also in the same genre, but has a reality TV show coming before it, "Lie to Me" is doing quite well also, drawing between 6.8 to 7.7 million on average (I don't have season numbers).
A lot of the reviews of "Castle" I've been reading point out that the second episode is much better than the pilot, which if internet browsers are to believe this, we should see a decent retention of viewers for next Monday.
The Ninja Report | March 10, 21:14 CET
[ edited by willbueche on 2009-03-10 21:42 ]
will.bueche | March 10, 21:40 CET
I liked the chemistry between Fillion & Katic. And the show plays to Nathan's strengths. I'll watch again. :)
FlyHead | March 10, 21:44 CET
helcat | March 10, 21:44 CET
BrewBunny | March 10, 22:30 CET
Castle (58 minutes)
- 10.760 million viewers
- 7.1/12 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
So by my calculations that means 47% retention out of DWTS overall and 49% retention in the demo which is pretty poor.
[ edited by helcat on 2009-03-10 22:57 ]
helcat | March 10, 22:57 CET
will.bueche | March 10, 23:00 CET
helcat | March 10, 23:07 CET
In spite of 'Castle's' drop-off, it still seems like strong numbers... I hope ABC is satisfied.
embers | March 10, 23:09 CET
helcat | March 10, 23:12 CET
kalia | March 10, 23:25 CET
hacksaway | March 10, 23:29 CET
Exsqueeze me? Ageism much? ;)
redeem147 | March 10, 23:30 CET
I was hoping with the reveal of Pres. Worf and the Superhero Registration Act... I mean illegality of powered people, that the show would fix itself. Kill off some of the chaf, have Ando die and make Hiro awesome and katana wielding, keep Nathan as an antagonist, but it seems they have no chutzpah. They really need to go to the Joss Whedon school of killing people off. Of course, at this point anyone they killed would cause happiness, not sadness for me.
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-03-10 23:47 ]
SteppeMerc | March 10, 23:46 CET
I agree with much of what has been said. Great chemistry between Stana and Nathan. This show totally plays to Nathan's strengths, and I hope it lasts because I think this a great vehicle for him.
I thought the pilot episode was strong. I think Stana performed extremely well. She had so many fantastic and different facial expressions, she really executed well. Nathan just had a great time and you could tell from watching.
Even with all this, I'll openly admit the only reason I tuned into the show is because of Nathan and he is the only reason Ill continue to watch it. I'm not a fan of Police/Procedural shows, but his dynamic makes this worth watching and fun. Nathan is on my very short list of people whose mere presence in ANYTHING makes it better and more fun to watch. Bruce Campbell is another such person.
Looking forward to next week's episode and great job to Nathan and Stana!
recoil | March 10, 23:55 CET
helcat | March 10, 23:57 CET
My husband just turned 50 last week - I'll have to make sure to check in him to see how he feels about this pants and language question. That dirty old man will probably say that he prefers his women with no pants at all, especially when they talk naughty.
BrewBunny | March 11, 00:00 CET
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-03-11 00:13 ]
SteppeMerc | March 11, 00:12 CET
Isn't it conceivable that DWTS fans a) aren't interested in procedurals b)switched to CSI because it's a show they already follow or c) went to bed?
I can see if they switched away from a show called Dancing With Castle that it might be a concern.
redeem147 | March 11, 00:14 CET
I'm fifty-two. Neither am I.
Like anyone has money to buy stuff anymore anyway.
redeem147 | March 11, 00:15 CET
Chuck will probably not be canceled.
"From what I understand they've already talked about dropping scripted shows altogether." - Not true.
Rikardo | March 11, 00:18 CET
TDBrown | March 11, 00:34 CET
TamaraC | March 11, 01:01 CET
I have no idea where you are getting your information. I just read at various sites that Heroes is getting canceled & NBC is still standing behind Chuck. TV critics like Chuck & this last episode was the 'hot pick of the week.' The show creators were pretty optimistic at WonderCon that Chuck would get a third season. NBC wouldn't spend the $$ to have the cast of Chuck come to WonderCon if there wasn't some hope of renewel.
What is the most important about this number/rating/demo business is what ABC is looking for. As I mention before, Castle is preforming better then what 'True Beauty' did during the 10pm hour. Furthermore, it is doing much better then 'Medium'.
You are making a lot of assumptions here & at times sounding like ABC has Castle on the chopping block. I sincerely hope Castle & Chuck continue to do well. I would enjoy nothing more then seeing our BDH reach the Hollywoood A list. It have been a lot of fun seeing Nathan working the talk shows last week.
Spacegirl3200 | March 11, 01:05 CET
My understanding with Chuck at the moment is "if" the ratings continue to drop...then yes it will be on the chopping block. There are some great guest stars coming & hopefully it will help the ratings.
Spacegirl3200 | March 11, 01:09 CET
There was an episode of Boston Legal about how TV doesn't cater towards the elderly (though in this case it was 70s, not 50s, since 50s and 60s isn't elderly anymore). It was a somewhat legit point, but I much prefer shows that supposedly appeal to the 18-49 crowd... despite the fact that obviously people older than that watch them. I'm not so sure how many 80 year old folks would watch Castle or Dollhouse or BSG though.
SteppeMerc | March 11, 01:09 CET
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/nbc-to-renew-heroes.html
Where did you get your information about Chuck? Hopefully not in the same place. LOL
[ edited by TamaraC on 2009-03-11 01:13 ]
TamaraC | March 11, 01:12 CET
There was an episode of Boston Legal about how TV doesn't cater towards the elderly (though in this case it was 70s, not 50s, since 50s and 60s isn't elderly anymore).
I loved that episode. My 78 year old mom got me watching BL. Apparently she tried Castle but it wasn't her thing, so maybe you're right.
I wasn't insulted. Sorry if I came off that way. I mean I'm not amused with the way the demographics are judged, not you.
Well, except when you're being amusing.
redeem147 | March 11, 01:23 CET
As for Castle, I'm not saying ABC will pull it this week or anything silly but a show that can't manage 50% in audience or demo out of it's lead in is always going to have at least a big question-mark next to it.
helcat | March 11, 01:26 CET
petranef | March 11, 01:28 CET
Also, as for the drop-off in viewership from DWTS, not only are they different show types (tho I liked Nathan trying to call Castle a reality show in one interview, lol), a lot of people turn their TV's off at 10 PM too. Let's hope the ratings don't drop significantly in subsequent episodes - that to me will be more telling as to its fate.
Spacey -- I learned the hard way that what the creators (and even the network reps) say at cons should to be taken with a grain of salt. Last year's SDCC was all about how Stargate Atlantis was going great, and they were looking forward to the next season. The network rep even stated that they had a lot of faith that Atlantis could last 10 seasons like SGA. Only a week or so later, they were cancelled. I'm not saying that what you heard at WonderCon isn't true from their perspectives (as I haven't been following Heroes at all and haven't paid attention to Chuck's ratings), I'm just saying not to assume that TPTB are telling them everything either.
I'm hopeful that Chuck's back half brings the show's magic back. Most shows hit rough patches, so I'm confident that they can find it again. I just pray that NBC still has faith in the show, because their ratings are troubling.
[ edited by MizBehavin1 on 2009-03-11 01:53 ]
MizBehavin1 | March 11, 01:51 CET
What logic are you using to come up with your 85% probability that it will be canceled? In this environment, aren't we all kind of guessing?
BrewBunny | March 11, 02:25 CET
By the time Castle asked the lady cop for the pictures so he could show them off to his fellow writer buddies, I glanced at the clock and did some quick math: it took Fillion about eighteen minutes and thirty seconds to make me a die hard Castle fan.
"I'm not asking you to give me the bodies. Just the pictures."
I'm so there, dude. I hope he has better luck on ABC than he did on FOX. I'd like to see Castle hang around for awhile.
ZachsMind | March 11, 02:40 CET
ZachsMind | March 11, 02:41 CET
Chuck was on the bubble last year and a lot of people were shocked when the woeful NBC picked it up for another season. It consistently placed 3rd and 4th in it's time period. Both in viewers and in the demo. It has had a horrible timeslot, but I don't think it matters. NBC will need 5 less shows next year. The lowest rated and most expensive shows will be the first to go. Mostly likely to go is Life and Chuck.
And I will be very sad.
TamaraC | March 11, 02:57 CET
Thanks for the word of advice regard info for Con pannels. I couldn't agree with you more about Nathan being overdue for a hit show.
BB-
You bet me to the bile of baloney regarding the magic 85% :-)
helcat-
I disagree. Sounds like you are saying that Castle is on the chopping block-- especially with your theory of "a show that can't manage 50% in audience or demo out of it's lead in is always going to have at least a big question-mark next to it". Again. we don't know what numbers ABC is expecting.
Spacegirl3200 | March 11, 03:21 CET
Anonymous1 | March 11, 03:23 CET
Anonymous1 | March 11, 03:41 CET
Y'all are too young to remember the Fish cheer. People who were young during the Sixties are at or near retirement now. The language and situations on Castle are Lawrence Welk compared to my faves Deadwood and the Sons of Anarchy.
janef | March 11, 03:57 CET
helcat | March 11, 04:29 CET
http://abc.com
Anonymous1 | March 11, 04:53 CET
Jossfan_21 | March 11, 05:27 CET
Beth | March 11, 06:51 CET
Carbondated | March 11, 08:17 CET
hacksaway | March 11, 08:35 CET
Glad that Castle debuted strong. I'm planning on catching it online today.
theclynn | March 11, 11:12 CET
Not holding lead-in numbers probably isn't much of a consideration; can't imagine they think DWTS and Castle are siblings. I don't mind though 'cuz DWTS is the only reality/contest show that I like.
Is Chuck any better than its first season? It never caught my interest in the slightest.
Nathan is definitely in his element with Castle. I love the daughter being the responsible one. Hope they don't overplay it though. Rogueish is fun but he came close to being worthless as a father.
[ edited by lottalettuce on 2009-03-11 12:50 ]
lottalettuce | March 11, 12:47 CET
zaphod | March 11, 13:50 CET
Chuck most likely won't be moved to another night therefore its likely to be gone. I really hope thats not the case.
Lockescythe | March 11, 18:52 CET
the Groosalugg | March 11, 19:12 CET
That's gotta be so totally tongue-in-cheek, rather than age-ism, 'cause you're like 40-ish, no? So we're not terribly much your elders, and obviously you know that demo can be pretty pants-friendly. And since we (many of us) came of age in the 60's, our language is often quite as colorful - if not moreso, in some cases - than subsequent generations. The main factor for the pants-and-swearing crowd wouldn't be age so much as region/class/liberality/religious background, etc.
For those of you who are very young or unschooled in fashion history: although there were laws in the U.S. up until about a century ago against wearing clothes considered as being inappropriate for one's gender, pants for women have increased in occurrence and popularity since 1930-ish, and by the 60's-70's, (depending on where you lived) were usually dress code-approved for girls/women in junior and/or high schools. Many thanks to Katharine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich, who helped popularize pants for women.
I'm 53, and I wore pants - jeans, usually of the bell-bottom persuasion - all the way through junior and high school. Actually, I haven't worn a dress since I gussied up (as we old folks say, dagnabit and consarnit) as a witch for Halloween in 1992. And I swear like a trucker, if that trucker swears a lot.
I know many like me. I say this just so the nature and style of many of us doesn't get lost in revision and mythology... ; > and not because it's remotely on-topic.
QuoterGal | March 11, 21:29 CET
And I'm a tad younger than you, Quoter Gal. (and really, just a wee little puppet tad)
redeem147 | March 11, 22:29 CET
resa | March 11, 23:02 CET
I think ageism (?) is one of those things that'll be around long after the cockroach. No one seems to be in a hurry to correct that either. From being considered wise and worthy of respect to knowing nothing and not having a "count"... I don't know. I don't get it.
korkster | March 11, 23:18 CET
Caught. Yes indeed. Good detective work!
will.bueche | March 12, 04:20 CET
cabri | March 12, 05:24 CET
sporter | March 12, 05:35 CET
QuoterGal | March 11, 21:29 CET
Well said ;) I'm older than you and live in jeans and t-shirts (shorts & tanks in summer, since I live in Hawaii) and haven't worn a dress in about the same amount of time (jeans and tees get swapped for silk pants and shirts, for special occasions).
And I would rather walk over hot coals than watch Dancing With The Stars. Why do really young people assume that those of us who came of age in the sixties are shocked by anything? ;)
Or that we've exchanged our radical mind-sets for knitting in a rocker .... to which, can I just say .....eeeww :_(
Shey | March 13, 14:14 CET
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.