DID Standard has fallen considerably

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

433796

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#11

I agree the TRP is high so more people are watching it. But that can not be the reason to say standard is high. In India, jokers like Akshay Kumar gives superhit movies and he thinks himself of Super star. Tushar Kapoor gave superhit Golmal series, people like it for some other reason, not because of quality of those movies. Film like Dabangg became super duper hit while a quality film like Guzaarish failed completely. For me standard went down for DID D, for other it may went up. But TPR is not the measurement of standard. Standard and Mass appeal are two different thing otherwise Salman Khan should have won all best actor awards not SRK this year.

Quote

Prud123

@Prud123

Inactive

Posted: 15 years ago

#12

Well i completely agree with your observations about Dabaang,Guzaarish,Shahrukh and salman.But at the same time i feel that we cant say that max people dont know what quality is.I mean for example even i dont like Dabaang but for many people it could be a quality film.Quality is different for different people.If max people like something then it means that it has something in it good enough to keep people hooked.

Edited by Prud123 - 15 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Ankit

@ankit_nyc

Inactive

Posted: 15 years ago

#13

😛 Is DID Doubles perfect? Absolutely not, what show is? Were DID 1 and DID 2 perfect? Absolutely not, and to those who say they were, please explain how "dancers" such as Noni, Sunita, Mangesh, Khushboo, Mandakini, Altaf etc were selected to be in those shows? I mean if DID 1 and DID 2 had flawless dancers through and through then how did the above mentioned contestants make it in to the show?😛 DID 1 and DID 2 both had their share of weak dancers and same is the case with DID Doubles...so where is the drop in standard? Is it the mentors? Well if mentors brought quality to the show then how do we explain the low quality of Chak Dhoom Dhoom? I mean if Terrence is perfection personified like some are saying then why aren't the standards of Chak Dhoom near perfection now that Terrence is part of that show? Same goes for Remo......why hasn't Remo turned Jhalak Dikhaja in to epitome of perfection? 😛 The truth is the mentors don't really matter much and have very little to do with quality.......the contestants on DID Doubles just like in DID 1 and DID 2 are the best and most qualified contestants and that's why DID 1 DID 2 and now DID Doubles are doing well in ratings........😛

Quote

433796

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#14

Originally posted by: ankit_nyc

😛 Is DID Doubles perfect? Absolutely not, what show is? Were DID 1 and DID 2 perfect? Absolutely not, and to those who say they were, please explain how "dancers" such as Noni, Sunita, Mangesh, Khushboo, Mandakini, Altaf etc were selected to be in those shows? I mean if DID 1 and DID 2 had flawless dancers through and through then how did the above mentioned contestants make it in to the show?😛 DID 1 and DID 2 both had their share of weak dancers and same is the case with DID Doubles...so where is the drop in standard? Is it the mentors? Well if mentors brought quality to the show then how do we explain the low quality of Chak Dhoom Dhoom? I mean if Terrence is perfection personified like some are saying then why aren't the standards of Chak Dhoom near perfection now that Terrence is part of that show? Same goes for Remo......why hasn't Remo turned Jhalak Dikhaja in to epitome of perfection? 😛 The truth is the mentors don't really matter much and have very little to do with quality.......the contestants on DID Doubles just like in DID 1 and DID 2 are the best and most qualified contestants and that's why DID 1 DID 2 and now DID Doubles are doing well in ratings........😛

Teri needle ek hi jagah pe atak gayee hai aor khisakte khisakte sara season finish ho jayega😉. Even that you are in comparision mode, but I agree with you. Mentor is not everything, lot of factors make a show successful. Actually Zee always have reality shows which connect to the people at grass root level, like both SRMGP and DID are more connected to small places, they always keep the format simple, and their format is pur desi. Their gharana/guru-chela format is working great since SRGMP 05. I watch JDJ and DID D, there is no comparision of dancing level, and should not be compared too. Both are different show, there mentors are basically kids and dancers are are kids. But I like that show too. I dont watch any other show, do not know baout the format either. I am having hard time to connect to DID D right now, I acually enjoy non-dancing stuff more on this show for now. But I think I will start liking this show from voting round. I have always been Zeean.

Edited by HakkaBakka - 15 years ago

Quote

Ankit

@ankit_nyc

Inactive

Posted: 15 years ago

#15

Originally posted by: HakkaBakka
Teri needle ek hi jagah pe atak gayee hai aor khisakte khisakte sara season finish ho jayega😉. Even that you are in comparision mode, but I agree with you. Mentor is not everything, lot of factors make a show successful. Actually Zee always have reality shows which connect to the people at grass root level, like both SRMGP and DID are more connected to small places, they always keep the format simple, and their format is pur desi. Their gharana/guru-chela format is working great since SRGMP 05. I watch JDJ and DID D, there is no comparision of dancing level, and should not be compared too. Both are different show, there mentors are basically kids and dancers are are kids. But I like that show too. I dont watch any other show, do not know baout the format either. I am having hard time to connect to DID D right now, I acually enjoy non-dancing stuff more on this show for now. But I think I will start liking this show from voting round. I have always been Zeean.

😃 needle jab tak kisi ko chubti hein tab tak hategi nahin......jab needle ineffective ho jayegi to hat jayegi.....😃 I am with you on the point about mentors not being a big deal on such shows....You could put pretty much any decent choreographers in the mentor seats and the ratings for DID Doubles, DID 1, and DID 2 would not suffer a bit...........😛 and as for ratings, DID 2 ratings went down big time as well for a few weeks and then picked up again.........DID Doubles is still the highest rated show at the moment and I am sure it will finish in that position as well........😛

Quote

Debayon Dutta

@debayon

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#16

I still do not understand how people are arguing in terms of what ratings are. First of all, ratings are unnecessary. I mean if a particular show's ratings were low, but I liked the show, I would not think twice to keep watching the show. But anyways...

Secondly, I had posted this before:

he ratings are not an accurate representative of what the audience wants. Do you know how they calculate the ratings of a particular show. They randomly select a certain area of viewership and calculate the number of viewers watching the show within that population(or statistic) Then they use that numerical value to estimate how many would be watching the show nationwide. So, basically they take the statistics from a sample of the population and expand it to represent the overall population. How is that not biased?

If you want, I can explain the process even further. But the bottom line is: It is still not an accurate representative, because it is not a census, but rather obtained via sampling.

Quote

433796

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#17

Originally posted by: debayon
I still do not understand how people are arguing in terms of what ratings are. First of all, ratings are unnecessary. I mean if a particular show's ratings were low, but I liked the show, I would not think twice to keep watching the show. But anyways...

Secondly, I had posted this before:

he ratings are not an accurate representative of what the audience wants. Do you know how they calculate the ratings of a particular show. They randomly select a certain area of viewership and calculate the number of viewers watching the show within that population(or statistic) Then they use that numerical value to estimate how many would be watching the show nationwide. So, basically they take the statistics from a sample of the population and expand it to represent the overall population. How is that not biased?

If you want, I can explain the process even further. But the bottom line is: It is still not an accurate representative, because it is not a census, but rather obtained via sampling.

You can't say Ratings are unnecessary. Rating is lifeline for some people.

Quote

Prud123

@Prud123

Inactive

Posted: 15 years ago

#18

Well no one is saying that ratings should be basis of the fact whether one should watch it or not.You watch a show because you like it not because ratings are high.Also i have said this before as well that ratings are not a new concept it has been going on for years and channels for years have been using this as a metric to measure their success and i dont think we can say that they dont know that ratings are not a correct metric and people who are professionals in this field take out these ratings.I am sure they know the correct procedure of taking out ratings so as to reflect the opinion of people at large.Any how that is a separate discussion.Also ratings was only brought in this discussion because TM thought that ratings have fallen from the previous season.Thus ratings was being discussed not because someone is saying that ratings are high so please watch the show.

Quote

Ankit

@ankit_nyc

Inactive

Posted: 15 years ago

#19

Originally posted by: debayon
I still do not understand how people are arguing in terms of what ratings are. First of all, ratings are unnecessary. I mean if a particular show's ratings were low, but I liked the show, I would not think twice to keep watching the show. But anyways...

Secondly, I had posted this before:

he ratings are not an accurate representative of what the audience wants. Do you know how they calculate the ratings of a particular show. They randomly select a certain area of viewership and calculate the number of viewers watching the show within that population(or statistic) Then they use that numerical value to estimate how many would be watching the show nationwide. So, basically they take the statistics from a sample of the population and expand it to represent the overall population. How is that not biased?

If you want, I can explain the process even further. But the bottom line is: It is still not an accurate representative, because it is not a census, but rather obtained via sampling.

😃 ummmm companies spend millions and millions of dollars in advertising based on ratings.......people who've done phd's from top notch universities around the world work for these companies to check the validity of the ratings......😃 sorry but I would rely on their expertise slightly more then other people's "expertise"........😃 If the ratings were so erroneous why would companies spend millions of dollars in advertising based on wrong ratings? or do they not know and are just wasting their money? so superbowl was not the most watched event on television in February? the ratings people just made it up? 😃 are ratings perfect? absolutely not, what is? but that's the best we have to gauge the success of a particular show at the moment.......😛 the awards shows you referenced in your earlier post don't rely on popularity but rather they have a jury which decides the winner........if they used public opinion then yes Dabang would be the best film of the year, and Salman would be the best actor of the year.......😛