Ratings: 'CSI' Debut Draws Big Numbers Thursday - 'Life on Mars...

I'm really surprised that "Life On Mars" won the hour, especially with the big lead-in that "Eleventh Hour" got.

Then again, I'm amazed that the depressing final season of "ER" topped them both in the 18-49 demo.

So in millions of viewers how much did Life on Mars and Eleventh Hour get?

I found 11th Hour slow which is why I can't imagine it got big numbers. I enjoyed Mars better, but we'll all see if they can hang on to those numbers in their 3rd, 4th, or 5th week.

The viewers will decide ...

I liked the Eleventh Hour. So should I get cozy with it or is Nina gonna take that one from me as well?

Both shows scored 11 million viewers last night, but EH bleeded more from CSI.

Considering Mars had an awful performance from GA this was better than expected.

does anyone know how much life on mars went down in ratings from 10 to 10:30?

I hate it that Warrick was killed, I thought that he played his part wonderfully.

The show Ugly Betty has lost millions of viewers. The show was fun when it focused on Betty as fish out of water.

i really liked "life on mars." i looked for shows with unique premises and this fits the bill. my favorite moment is when he wakes up in 1973 and sees the world trade center towers. i hope this show lasts. i applaud ABC and FOX in giving their shows time to grow and develop an audience, unlike some networks and shows i could name (CBS-Moonlight).

When you say "time to grow", it implies, that there is growth in numbers.

Which shows on ABC and Fox are you referring to.

House is the only show on Fox that has experienced growth in recent memory (until its puzzling fall this season), and it was doing well from the get-go.

ABC really has no hits that they shepherded through bad ratings.

It's one of the most common myths of modern television that shows grow if given the chance.

The reality is the opposite, with rare exceptions that the networks usually don't know how to spot.

I guess both Life on Mars and Eleventh Hour did ok this week. What ABC and CBS are gonna look at is how each show performs in future weeks especially since both shows air after very high rated dramas (CSI and Grey's Anatomy).

rena, i bet you are young. i'm 51, and i can tell you that the networks did not use to give their shows the bum's rush like this. in 1978, the carol burnette show ended, at carol's choice, not because it was cancelled, but because the show had been slipping in the ratings for two years and carol thought it was classier to leave before you are asked to. don't tell me, that was then and this is now. new ways are not always best. disrespecting your viewers is wrong, i don't care what year it is. speaking of the ratings, they are inaccurate and archaic. they don't take so many factors into consideration. until they put a neillson device on every tivo, every dvr, every computer, and every tv, not just 1500 in america, it's not accurate. they are partially reliant on the device on the tv and partly reliant on a diary kept by the family. and no one ever makes up stuff in a diary, right?

my point is, cbs are still a collection of idiots for cancelling moonlight, moonlight's fans will not go away, and we are laughing our butts off that that clunking loser the ex list that dared exist in our show's time slot will soon be history. then we can begin boycotting the next one to appear there. what cbs has really done by upsetting moonlight fans is drag down the numbers for ghost whisperer and numbers this season, both fine shows, but they are going to end up as colateral damage.

SNL was so funny

Rena Moretti wrote:

When you say "time to grow", it implies, that there is growth in numbers.
Which shows on ABC and Fox are you referring to.
House is the only show on Fox that has experienced growth in recent memory (until its puzzling fall this season), and it was doing well from the get-go.
ABC really has no hits that they shepherded through bad ratin
It's one of the most common myths of modern television that shows grow if given the chance.
The reality is the opposite, with rare exceptions that the networks usually don't know how to spot.

well, i think you're wrong. i just disagree. lots of shows gain audience over time.

"Lots of shows gain audience over time."

Fine, Eydie. Name ten within the last five years, or five in the past two years.

Rena and I will even help you with the first one. "House" had huge growth in the second half of its first season, after its new lead-in, "American Idol," got it sampled. That's an exception - only so many freshman shows can be blessed by the halo effect of a phenomenom.

Rena was pointing out the reality, which is that the overwhelming majority of shows decline from their debut. Some level off, and some continue to fall until cancellation mercifully comes.

Of course, I'm trying to reason with one of the "Moonlight" fanatics, who are notorious for having difficulty understanding numbers that might impede their obsessive love for Alex O'Loughlin's eyes (or whatever other body part makes you hot).

Finally, as my handle suggests, I'm almost 49, so disagreeing with you is not a function of age, as you implied.

Alan 59 wrote:

"Lots of shows gain audience over time."
Fine, Eydie. Name ten within the last five years, or five in the past two years.
Rena and I will even help you with the first one. "House" had huge growth in the second half of its first season, after its new lead-in, "American Idol," got it sampled. That's an exception - only so many freshman shows can be blessed by the halo effect of a phenomenom.
Rena was pointing out the reality, which is that the overwhelming majority of shows decline from their debut. Some level off, and some continue to fall until cancellation mercifully comes.
Of course, I'm trying to reason with one of the "Moonlight" fanatics, who are notorious for having difficulty understanding numbers that might impede their obsessive love for Alex O'Loughlin's eyes (or whatever other body part makes you hot).
Finally, as my handle suggests, I'm almost 49, so disagreeing with you is not a function of age, as you implied.

i swear i don't mean anything bad by this, but you are a man. you wouldn't understand why women are passionate about moonlight any more than most women why guys like stuff like blowing things up and football. i think we can disagree and realize that we aren't going to change anyone's opinion. i am not going to make anyone see the truth and you aren't going to change my mind. i and all other moonlight fans have the right to be vocal and to continue to tell cbs that they were wrong. i have no illusions. it won't change anything. it's just about saying "told you so." my husband will tell you that i do that very well. it just makes me happy. as for those shows, that will take some research. i promise to get back to you.

alan, here is what i have found. the following is five of the biggest shows in history that started with crappy ratings and experienced a turn around. why you think it has to be recent is beyond me. good is good no matter when it's on.

http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/11/28/the-five-bi...

please click on this website to read all about it.

also read the comments section following the article. it will give you info about "survivor" that i didn't know.

gee, alan and rena, i noticed you haven't responded. come on, don't be a poor loser. everybody's wrong every now and then.