It's only the first episode, but people seem to be avoiding ABC's new edition of The Mole like it was on The CW or something.
The first episode of the show this past Monday at 10pm got a 1.9 rating in the important 18 to 49 demographic. It came in third place in the time slot and lost a lot of the lead-in from The Bachelorette.
I don't understand why viewers don't make this one of the top reality shows on television. I mean, if you love reality television, why don't you watch this show? Is it the time slot? Is it the fact that you have to figure things out on the show yourself? I think this is actually one of the most interesting parts of the show, that it's actually a reality show that you can actually play along with. You don't get that with The Bachelorette or Survivor. It's actually a reality show mixed with a mystery/spy series. It's a TV mystery series, where viewers have to guess who the bad guy is, mixed with a reality competition series. And it has great music and great Amazing Race-like stunts and worldwide locales and is immensely entertaining. Why aren't more people, especially people who watch reality shows, watching The Mole?
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
6-04-2008 @ 3:34PM
Bas said...
One word: boring. I watched the 1st episode only because tv squad seemed so high on it (I didn't see any previous seasons). Very disappointed. Dull host with awful scripted lines. Elimination that went on way too long. Annoying people-no one to root for. I'll give it one more shot, but I don't hold out high hopes.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 5:37PM
Steven said...
I couldn't agree more. ABC was making those show to be huge, but what a bore. I couldn't even make it through the first episode. I had it DVRed, but had to stop the recording halfway through because it was so stupid.
6-04-2008 @ 7:17PM
Ryan said...
That would explain maybe why the SECOND episode would have low ratings, but how would that explain a low rating for the premiere?
6-04-2008 @ 3:48PM
Lorenzojr said...
I'm fairly sure I'm reading the reality-free feed to avoid reading about The Mole and its ilk
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 3:51PM
Scott said...
How in the world did this post get the Reality-Free tag??
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 3:52PM
Andrew said...
Ugh here comes the here comes the hate!
Perfect flame bait for reality haters...and it's under the reality-free category!
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 3:53PM
Bob Sassone said...
Sorry, I clicked the reality-free tag by mistake. But take this as a sign that this is a reality show that even reality show-haters would like! :)
Reply
6-05-2008 @ 10:01AM
kevjohn said...
I'm not against reality shows per se, but it's seemed to me that the overwhelming majority of them are pure crap-on-a-stick. Manufactured drama and tension, manipulative situations, lame competitions, even the casting is typically suspiciously formulaic. How these shows ever came to fall under the category of "reality" is beyond me.
That said, most people tend to have one or two reality shows on their list of regular viewing, if only as a guilty pleasure. I've got one already (Heck's Kitchen) and I'm not sure I'd want to add another anytime soon.
6-04-2008 @ 4:01PM
lc said...
It comes on later than most reality shows.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:08PM
Chester said...
I have never watched the Mole series, started in the middle of the last one and realized not a good idea.
Watched the first one the other night and decided to give another episode a watch. I don't understand people watching one show where a group of contestants are involved and complain that there is no one to root for, I usually need a few shows to see personalities emerge.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:10PM
Duane said...
I remember watching the original Mole, whenever the heck that was on, and thinking how flawed the premise is. Each week the producers will choose to edit the show in a way that makes the audience think one thing or another. It is impossible to accurately play the game when there's somebody manipulating the evidence they choose to let you see.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 9:45PM
doug said...
Nails it right here. There was no way to reasonably guess who was the Mole. None. Even the first winner agreed she had some random strategy to help, then hurt, then help. How does a saboteur ever help? Game is flawed. Show is flawed.
6-05-2008 @ 1:37PM
collin said...
Not to nitpick, but the winner of the first season was an undercover cop (not a "she"). I think you might be referring to the second season where Dorothy was the winner.
But yeah, it's all about the editing. Funny enough, that often makes a mediocre show better in some instances.
6-08-2008 @ 9:19PM
doug said...
Not to nitpick, nitpicker, but you're wrong. Kathyrn was the first season winner.
6-10-2008 @ 6:37AM
heinlein said...
*Mole Season 1 Spoiler*
doug: I own season 1 on DVD, and Kathryn was the first mole, not the first winner. Big difference.
Also when the mole made a brief comeback here in Sweden, then I was able to make a good and right prediction of who the mole was about halfway in (about 80%-20% split between the mole and the fourth place finisher, and had altogether written out all other candidates). The best way to detect the mole is to realize that it has pre-knowledge of most/all challanges and can thus affect in which group to be, and thus what to sabotage and how to do subtle things. (Credit to Jeffrey Clinard at RNO)
6-04-2008 @ 4:20PM
collin said...
Let me just mention that I am a huge fan of the first two seasons of The Mole before I bash this third season prematurely.
Ok.
The first two seasons of The Mole also suffered from low rating as I'm sure this season will also. Why?
The challenges on The Mole (at least the first two seasons) required using your head for the most part. Can you say that most of America wants to see that on a reality show or *shudder*, be forced to use their heads themselves? My opinion would be no.
Keep in mind that the majority of America's viewing audience suffers from a worse case of ADD than I do and if there are no bikini-clad surviviors running around an island performing mind-numbing challenges, they will abandon that reality show quicker than rats on a sinking ship.
If you need a further example of the target audience's ADD, look at the next two reality shows that ABC is pushing on us: "Wipeout" and "I Survived A Japanese Game Show."
You could also say that ABC probably won't promote The Mole as much as CBS does with Survivor, but that's a direct result of the ratings. If The Mole does well, you'll probably see the show pushed more. If not... well, you know.
I know we've only seen the first episode of the third season so far, but it really seems like a step down in quality when compared to the first two seasons. I hope the producers don't resort to the campy and idiot levels they dragged the show down to with the Celebrity series, but I'm hopeful that it gets better as the show goes on.
I'm sorry if this seemed a little harsh, but I don't think I'm wrong by saying that America loves its ADD-inspired programming. That's why Survivor, Dancing with the Stars and any movie by Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer does well - they don't require the audience to use their heads, and the audience doesn't seem to mind.
I hope TV Squad pushes more people to watch The Mole, though. I'm glad this article was written.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:13PM
Donna said...
Well, you know, I had thought about watching it, but the next time I thought about it was the morning after it had aired. I forgot all about it.
Then, looking back, I wasn't exactly sad I missed it. I was indifferent. I even thought, well, it may be good that I don't get hooked on another reality show.
Chances are high I won't tune in next week either. Life will go on.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:19PM
JFTA said...
I DVR'd it and watched it the next day. Does that count? I had never watched any of the versions but will give it a chance. My husband won't because I can tell there are some personalities that he would not enjoy.
I think the time slot might be the reason more aren't tuning in.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:21PM
Brendan said...
I watched it and at the first mention of a "coalition" turned it off. If reality shows could stop being stupid, I'd watch them. I don't need contestant-generated drama. The show, by its own nature is supposed to do that.
Reply
6-04-2008 @ 4:25PM
Rob Stevens said...
I think the answer is that ABC didn't do shit for advertising. Sure, there were the DVR-able split-second ads, but seriously, if you happened to blink, you missed those. That's all I can remember of their advertising campaign, and I'm saying that as a FAN of the show who was seeking it out. I didn't even know it was on last night until yesterday afternoon.
I'm sure the 10PM time slot isn't doing it any favors, either.
Reply