"The Book of Daniel" placed third in its time slot, behind CBS and ABC, among viewers between the ages of 18 and 49, MediaWeek said.
awwwwww isn't that just too too bad? i read today a couple of companies had yanked their ads. *sniff* LOL
The show is flat-lining...
If that is the case the next showing should show more advertisers who are bailing out. No one wants to get onboard a sinking ship.
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL... FOR THE BOOK OF DANIEL!
;)
Advertising revenue for TV is much too precious, right now, to take a chance on losing it.
To top that off, January and February are the poorest months of the year for TV ad income. They are at their most vulnerable revenue position of the entire year right now so they had better act quickly to try and cut their losses.
Further proof that crap like this doesn't need to be censored, as it will fail all by itself.
Actually, viewed as a spoof of the Religious Left, the show is uproariously ridiculous. My housemate and I were howling such things as, "of COURSE they're Lesbians!", etc. I had only planned to watch TV for an hour just to know how bad it was, but was having so much fun, I watched both hours (not realizing at first it was two hours).
Not that I can commend the show. It is not, in fact, a spoof of the left coming from the right. It is a spoof of the left coming from someone who is so far to the left, that he believes he is spoofing the right. But what works about the show is that the spoof is not in making detestable characters, as most vile from the left typically does. Rather the show makes soft pleasant people, who are contemptible only for their lack of character, and places them in preposterous situations stemming from their weaknesses. The anger behind the show (which is aimed at Christianity, no doubt) is manifested by demonstrating the hypocrisy of the characters. Or, to put it more delicately, the inconsistency of the characters. The characters are in some ways very liberal, and in some ways Christian. (Perhaps not what people on this forum would consider GOOD Christian, but the man IS a priest.) And the drama in this dramedy comes from the tension between these aspects.
For instance: the priest has a gay son. The father is sooooo accepting of the son's lifestyle, or at least tries to be. And he is mocked (by the writer's juxtaosition of events, and by the character of his son) because he is, at heart, a little uneasy with being a Christian leader who has a gay son. Presumably, the writer, a gay activist, expects us to see the father's weakness as having an inherent tendency to be a little grossed out by his son's behavior.
The priest, however, also has a Republican son. (Not the religious right; this son is also a bit of a playboy.) This son has voiced several very conservative beliefs. They're not even slanderous misrepresentations of conservativism. The father is shocked and horrified by them, directing his other son to "get my will and an eraser." This is meant as humor, but also demonstrates the father's extreme passion; there is plenty of serious anger, frustration and outrage.
When contrasted with the unquestionning acceptance of his gay son's lifestyle, it creates a devestating satire of the folly of the Father's liberalism. Further irony is that the Republican son, by not projecting the message "if I had a problem with this it would mean I didn't love you," is able to project much greater ease around his gay brother, without having to persistently judge whther the homosexuality is acceptible or not. Further, while the father wracks his brain (and his congregation) about whether temptation is a gift from God (even while he fails to consider that homosexuality may be such a temptation), the Republican son is the one who can say (through his actions), "hey, we're all sinners; it doesn't mean you're not my brother."