Talk:Bull (2016 TV series)

CBS backs unpopular show?!

The lede is bullish, but the public doesn't like it. In the words of the article, the series:

• premiered on September 20, 2016

and:

• received negative reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, the first episode received a score of 24%

Yet despite being panned:

• On October 17, 2016, CBS picked up the series for a full 22 episode season

The response to the series was then also dire:

• On Metacritic, the series holds a 40 out of 100

and yet CBS continues to invest:

• On March 23, 2017, CBS renewed the series for a second season

If the US and its major corporations are paradigms of the market economy this makes no sense whatsoever, unless funding is actually responding to the desire of advertisers (and others?) to influence perception, alter the context within advertisements are viewed and prime audience reception. Here Wikipedia assists this, as people generally do not read to the end of articles, by encouraging the idea that the program is in fact "good". IMO the word "full" should be deleted and the issue of damning reviews should be referred to from the get-go to attain an NPOV. LookingGlass (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Robberey1705 - please do not simply censor this suggested edit. If you have something of value and substance to say then please say so here and discuss. Thank you. LookingGlass (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all, this only marginally can be seen to address an issue that improves the article, and is highly POV on your part. Moreover, it really makes very little sense. In the production section, we already note the state of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (which may possibly need updating; I don't bother with those things). There seem to be two, possibly three, issues here: a) how important are the reviews of the show with the article and where should they be discussed; b) do they relate to CBS' decisions regarding a full-season pick-up and later renewal of the show and; c) are meta-analyses worth the paper they're printed on? And then there's your own POV, which is clearly a poor opinion of the show framing what you're suggesting here.

Let's start with reviews: does critical opinion = public opinion? You make the statement that "the public doesn't like it" on the assumption that the reviews (poor on RT, mixed on MC, hardly panned) equate with public opinion. Yet viewership and ratings tell a different story, averaging 1.5 in the demo and 11.6 million viewers live + same day. Those will increase with Live + 3 day (which CBS uses to evaluate the success of a show, not reviews) and Live + 7 Day. Given those numbers does the public like the show? Well, yeah; average growth in the demo appears to run somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% based on what I could find. And really how could it miss, safely placed between NCIS and NCIS:NO with the very popular Michael Weatherly as its star? So given the disconnect between reviews and viewership, despite what you claim, how much weight do we give the reviews? As much as we do any other show: we put them in the reception section, which is in the position within the article we see in the vast majority of TV series articles, per Project TV. This presentation particularly important because it prevents placement of critical reviews in an article based on the preferences, or biases, of an individual editor, who may have an agenda such as you appear to. End result: the reviews are presented in a neutral fashion, and left for the reader to evaluate. No change needed.

Moving on to language used to present the status of the show (premiere, pick-up, renewal) and the wisdom of CBS's decision: we document what happened. The show premiered on a given date, it received its back-nine order for a full season, and it was renewed. Where's the POV in that? Each benchmark is supported by sources. Why delete full? It's a statement of fact: 22 episodes is a full season. Moreover, how would the use of full to describe the season be in any way a reflection of critical reception? It isn't. It simply modifies the word season to clarify that the show will run 22 episodes over the full September - May broadcast season. As for the wisdom of CBS's decision: that's not for us to evaluate, and there are a litany of policies I won't bore you with to back me up. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of editor opinions. If you want to hold forth on CBS's decision, Reddit is that way, and TV.com is the other way. Knock yourself out.

Lastly is the issue of the value of meta-analyses of critical reviews. I think it can be reasonably argued that the average editor/reader herein, if they've taken a course in statistics at all, has taken descriptive statistics (mean/meadian/mode) and perhaps has a nodding acquaintance with statistical inference by way of some introduction to probabilities. Only those with specific career-based needs or advanced degrees have studied statistical inference, particularly at the level where analysis strategies such as meta-analysis are examined. That's readily apparent in the blind acceptance of the ratings from RT and MC, which are passed along unquestioned by Wikipedia editors. Most editors who have actually studied the merits and demerits of meta-analysis will tell you its value, and accuracy are highly questionable; noted researchers have long questioned its value, describing it as highly susceptible to the "garbage in/garbage out" phenomenon: it's only as good as the data that go in (see for example, Ioannides, 2016). RT and MC will plug a review from the Los Angeles Times television critic next to one from some minor TV website run by two college kids into its formula and weight them equally. Given neither site makes even the slightest attempt to screen the quality of the reviews it throws into its calculations, one can easily assume GI/GO applies here. Neither site's reductionist data are worth the time it takes to read them.

So where does this leave us? Right where we are now. We leave the article formatted as proscribed by Project TV, we leave the garbage MC and RT data in (more's the pity), we supplement with quotes from particular reviews, and we leave it to the reader to evaluate the wisdom of CBS's decision, or whether to tune in tonight. That's the job of an encyclopedia. --Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any grounds to call the show unpopular to the public at all. I've added and fully sourced a ratings table, which shows that Bull has a large and loyal audience. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Robberey1705 Thank you. That is helpful. If I may distill your reply: you don't like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic data. and do not believe that there is a place for comment/reviews in an encyclopaedia. The former seems to be your opinion not that of Wiki. And reviewers opinions have always been referred to in coverage of entertainment/arts and they are in wiki. I think you would be hard pressed to find many if any articles on wiki that do not include such commentary. The article on Chekov's Three Sisters for instance includes this remark in its lede: "The play is sometimes included on the short list of Chekhov's outstanding plays". There is an entire section there titled "notable productions" based almost entirely the opinion of commentators/critics. I won't expand on this at the length your reply deserves but leave it as a note that provides a point of reference inferring the spectrum of criticism/reception/significance you are considering in your opinion. While I appreciate your desire to keep it factual, with regard to the arts this is not really an option of any merit. As for your assumptions regarding my own opinion, while broadly correct, as you point out, it is irrelevant. My edit suggestion, in my opinion, would balance what otherwise stands out as a passively biased article. With regard to the anonymous comment above, the table provided does not seem to signify a "large and loyal audience". Statistics are indeed a complex subject as you suggest, but those given in the reference seem to suggest an audience of about 2% which compares with popular programs in the UK garnering at least 5 times that number. Trying to resolve different views on that here would also be innappropriate. Fact is that Wiki includes the meta reviews you dislike. Having included them they should, IMO, then be .. included. There is a contradiction between the reviews and production investment. You ascribe this to the quality of the reviews. I think that is irrelevant. They are the reviews. Reviews are relevant to articles on the arts. Their relevance cuts both ways, commenting on both the reviews and the productions. Where does this leave us? With a disagreement. Which is fine. And a minor edit, which in my opinion is uncontentious but, perhaps because of my argumantation, you find unacceptable. LookingGlass (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's see:

a) I am not Robberey1705.

b) I did not say there is not a place for comments/reviews in an encyclopedia. I addressed their relative location in the article, and how they should be interpreted vis a vis CBS's decision-making and the popularity of the show. Please read what I wrote carefully, and try not to put words in my mouth.

c) Your opinion is highly relevant when it influences a highly POV (and as such, inherently controversial) edit, such as you propose.

d) Please do not conflate my comments regarding the methodological flaws inherent in meta-analysis with the IP's comments. They are not related. I did not suggest removal of RT and MC data; rather, I pointed out issues as part of a discussion of your interpretation of the data. Again, please read what I said carefully and avoid ascribing statements to me that are not mine.

e) Bull is an American show. UK viewership has no bearing on its popularity or the decisions CBS will make regarding its future, and comparisons between its viewership in the U.S. and UK television audience patterns is a comparison of apples and bananas; as such, it is irrelevant.

f) I did not address a contradiction between reviews and production investment, much less take the simplistic, reductionist view your claim I did. Once again, I simply pointed out the well-documented "garbage in, garbage out" phenomenon that must be considered when evaluating meta-analysis data.

g) If you were to read about the recent decision-making regarding the fate of shows, you would discover two additional factors are increasingly important: 1) does the network own the show; and 2) does it make money? How does that enter into your arguments?

You're certainly welcome to attempt to build consensus for your proposed edit, but I doubt the cabal at Project TV will take other than a dim view of your altering their jealously guarded article construction and formatting. --Drmargi (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

See Point A) raised by Drmargi. That applies to me too. I'm a bit confused by that long response to a one-line opinion. I entered this discussion randomly after spending over an hour creating and sourcing a ratings table. I just felt that there was nothing to suggest the show was unpopular with viewers. If viewers hated the show, the ratings would be pretty bad. But they're not. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Genre

I challenge the claim that this TV show is "Comedy-Drama". It requires an authoritative source. The reference attached to that claim in the lede does NOT support the claim, rather it says the show is a drama. I personally find the show neither funny nor dramatic, but melodramatic? definitely.98.21.212.196 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a tendency among some editors to label any show that balances drama with even a little humor as a comedy-drama. Bull is very much a drama, although far from a melodrama (that's more the style of shows like Grey's Anatomy and other Shondaland dreck). ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Time to split the episodes into their own article?

I'm not familiar with the relevant portion of the Manual of Style, but since the show is well into its second season, isn't it time to split off the Episode section into its own article? —DocWatson42 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Redhead4567 took care of this last month, so I guess I'll ask my question elsewhere (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#When should the list of episodes be split off into a separate article?). —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

hatnote

Would someone please fix the hatnote? I would rather see it corrected sooner than to muddle around with it myself until I get it right. The current hatnote here seems to be the correct one for Bull(2000), the banking show. Thanks. rags (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC) rags (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

rags: In my current "mobile" state I can't really check who, but someone (else) has fulfilled your request. DocWatson42 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Dushku sexual harassment allegations/pay off

Article needs to be updated to reflect the recent revelation that CBS paid Dusku $9.5 million to cover-up her claim that there was a misogynistic and possibly criminal culture of harassment on the set of "Bull" which was encouraged by members of the crew and cast, including Michael Weatherly, who apologized to her.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/business/media/cbs-bull-weatherly-dushku-sexual-harassment.html 11bkway11 (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

.... new comment in form of edit to talk.... I agree but am not the writer for the task. Not a TV watcher so I came here to learn about it. This incident is now a part of the facts of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.182.102 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reference to the English composer?

I wonder if Bull's name is somewhow a reference to the English Renaissance composer Dr. John Bull? I can't see why, with the entirely different profession, but the similarity in his name (apart from the last name: the first character of the given name, and the doctor title) made me wonder. (sorry if this has been discussed before or is an old hat -- haven't seen any reference to it yet) --Thewizzy (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)