Why is the cw seen as worse then other networks?

A few have mentioned it on here but I want to know why some people don't like the cw they have a really good set of shows compared to the likes of mtv, spike and stars 

Comments

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    "What do you want me to say?" - Don Draper
    KingKobraTaraC73TravisMichelleElisahypergenesb
  • edited March 8
    I would put them below Starz (not sure if that was what you meant). CE has a target demo that they saturate their programming with and thatbdosent tend to lead to “top dramas”. I gave up on every show outside of The 100 that I used to watch on CW. Now you may like them personally and there’s nothing wrong with that, I’m just not sure their demo/audience shows really hits what most at BM are looking for. 
    TravisElisa
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    edited March 10
    My Crazy Ex Girlfriend is on CW. I think that’s a good show that has adds some quality to television in general. 



    TravisShumElisa
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited March 8
    I don't watch much of it these days (aside from Supernatural reruns on Netflix), but I have nothing against the CW. I've enjoyed a lot of CW shows for a spell. There was a point in time a couple or few of years ago when I was watching the CW probably more than any other network (I think I was regularly following 4 shows and casually watching a 5th). With that qualifier, here's my take:

     I think the thing with the CW is that it fits a certain niche that is maybe a little more "fast food" than other networks, particularly with people who take the quality of their TV a little more seriously (as people on this board for instance tend to). They have done things and tried things to revamp their image and I think shows like Jane the Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend get respect from within the critical crowd. Those have been good risks. I think the thing ultimately though is that the CW largely is the network where a bunch of young may-as-well-be models play out popcorn stories for young people, and this is true. Hell, they embrace it in their advertising, and that's fine. It's a strategy that doesn't win you Emmys attention or wide ranging critical respect though. Look, I thought Arrow had a really nice run for a couple of seasons and The Flash is a fun show, iZombie is good and fun, The Vampire Diaries was hit and miss, but could be a ton of fun. I really like Supernatural a whole lot (though the last season and a half or so it has definitely taken a step back) I think the problem for a more discerning audience though is that they typically want more than fun, and where you can generally have more fun by sacrificing depth to the content (it's really hard to get a good balance of both) but you will lose those folks. 

    I see it like this. The CW is really good at being the CW, and they service those fans really, really well. I enjoy some of that stuff too, but what they do isn't what gets most critics and broader TV fans with more discerning tastes excited. There isn't anything wrong with the CW, but it is a niche network. It's not trying to play at the same game as AMC or FX or HBO, etc., and why should they? They have an audience that wants what they do, and they service them well. In making that decision though, that just means that they don't get the sort of "respect benefits" that those other networks do. It just is what it is. That's my take at least.
    iMatty94
  • MichelleMichelle California
    JaimieT said:
    "What do you want me to say?" - Don Draper
    Reply of the week.  :star:


    JaimieTElisahypergenesb
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    edited March 8
    For me, it's budget, audience, prestige. They are all interconnected. The CW could make the leap if they canceled a bunch of stuff and put all their eggs in one creative basket, similar to AMC back in the day. But if that fails, and in this entertainment -rich market environment, that's a good bet... executives loose their jobs and CW goes bankrupt. They're making a nice living where they are. 

    HBO dominates these categories. Netflix is acting like it wants to come at the king. CW is Cheese. He's just happy to be here and hoping he doesn't get bumped off in season three. 


    Septa NutellaTravisKingKobraMichelleElisaiMatty94
  • For me, it's budget, audience, prestige. They are all interconnected. The CW could make the leap if they canceled a bunch of stuff and put all their eggs in one creative basket, similar to AMC back in the day. But if that fails, and in this entertainment -rich market environment, that's a good bet... executives loose their jobs and CW goes bankrupt. They're making a nice living where they are. 

    HBO dominates these categories. Netflix is acting like it wants to come at the king. CW is Cheese. He's just happy to be here and hoping he doesn't get bumped off in season three. 


    Seconded.  I love superhero shit, so I will absolutely admit to watching a bunch of CW shows.  However, those are the shows I watch in the background while I'm messing with my phone, not ones that I lose myself in because they require my full attention.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Because it’s seen as a network for teenagers, and people love nothing more than to sneer at things teenagers like. 
    Travishypergenesb
  • Dee said:
    Because it’s seen as a network for teenagers, and people love nothing more than to sneer at things teenagers like. 
    Nailed it!
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    edited March 8
    I see the CW as the station it was before CW existed. Where I live it was KTLA, I guess it kinda seems bush league compared to KNBC.
    i got over that with Fox after some time.

    could be worse they could’ve been UPN. 
  • ElisaElisa Los Angeles
    It’s okay, tv lite. I used to watch the 100 but it got ridiculous so I dropped off. I do like Jane the Virgin and Crazy Ex Girlfriend in doses but I normally watch them when they go to Netflix. There’s some cheese, mostly young actors, Vampires, superheroes  and everyone wants to bang. But they know who they are  are very low budget and love the young demos ratings wise. 
  • MattyWeavesMattyWeaves Mid-State New York
    It also doesn't help it's a poorly run channel. And I don't mean at an executive level.

    Where I am in NY, it's constantly the only channel that has some sort of video problem. The last few episodes of Riverdale has been messed up in some way for the first 15 minutes or so.
  • hypergenesbhypergenesb Atlanta
    edited March 9
    It doesn't help that the WB/UPN were the predecessor networks. Remember this?



    @Dee's on the money. They create shows primarily for younger audiences - 18–34 demographic - and those types of shows are easy targets, regardless of how successful they are. Back in the day, Veronica Mars, later followed by Gossip Girl, 90210 and The Vampire Diaries; and more recently Jane The Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. Just because they don't aspire to be prestige doesn't mean they can't be very entertaining. 
    DeeTravis
  • I really really like Legends of Tomorrow. It's got whimsy and style and fun. Flash had that its first season, but lost it afterwards. Hopefully Legends doesn't get too serious as it progresses. It doesn't always work, but it works often enough that I actually sit and watch it instead of just using it as background noise.
    Travis
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited March 9
    The former UHF station where I lived showed both Babylon 5 and DS9.  I guess it was the leading edge of the eventual CW.

    It doesn't help that the WB/UPN were the predecessor networks. Remember this?



    @Dee's on the money. They create shows primarily for younger audiences - 18–34 demographic - and those types of shows are easy targets, regardless of how successful they are. Back in the day, Veronica Mars, later followed by Gossip Girl, 90210 and The Vampire Diaries; and more recently Jane The Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. Just because they don't aspire to be prestige doesn't mean they can't be very entertaining. 

Sign In or Register to comment.