Little Mosque on the Prairie's Ratings Plummet

jdobbin · April 6, 2007

I heard talk of having it set in the States if it were to move south. Don't count on Canadian praries getting the tourism dollars of Americans out looking for Mosques on the Prarie.

It's fine if they want to set in the States. Like British comedies being exported to the States, the royalties continue to head back to the original creators. In this case, Canadians will still get the money.

And here's the kicker, Little Mosque will still end up on cable TV in the U.S. because the stations are increasingly becoming fans of the original material coming out of Canada.

mcqueen625 · April 6, 2007

Something tells me they will air they episodes they've already purchased then the show will slowly go away.

As it should! Just another mediocre Canadian production, and as a matter of fact I tend to change the channel or not tune in at all when I find out that it is Canadian, because that generally means that my tax money was donated to produce this crap. I have no problem with Canadian production other than what I just stated, and the fact that at least south of the border movie production is funded by private corporations and individuals, and they do not look to the public purse to fund it. The same should apply to our CBC, it should be privatized and run the same as PBS is run in the States, by subscribers. As long as the CBC continues to receive public funding they should get out of commercial broadcasting, sports, and stick to a format similar to PBS. I might even contribute voluntarily, but I don't feel tax money should fund a network that is in direct competition with non-tax payer funded programming.

CBC is not alone in this because I am sure that CTV and other privately owned broadcasters are taking advantage of government grants to produce Canadian content, content I might add that is not worth the watch. I just read the other day that Porky's was produced with Canadian government grants, and although it was a good comedy movie, it was paid for with tax-payer's money. This movie made a significant amount of money at the box office, and I wonder if the producer repaid the Canadian government. or pocketed the profits and they went south of the border. What is wrong with this picture when an American can come to Canada, apply for a grant to make a movie, the movie becomes a hit and the people who paid for it's production are not included in profit-sharing? Which is why I say if people or corporations want to make movies, Canadian content or otherwise, let them do it with their own money, and that includes the CBC.

BubberMiley · April 6, 2007

...but I don't feel tax money should fund a network that is in direct competition with non-tax payer funded programming.

Well, that's a position that's rarely stated on these forums. How do you feel about global warming?

ScottSA · April 6, 2007

How do you feel about global warming?

"Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change" to better accomodate the colder winters, frostbitten Global Warming activists and expanding polar caps. Get with the program.

mcqueen625 · April 6, 2007

...but I don't feel tax money should fund a network that is in direct competition with non-tax payer funded programming.

Well, that's a position that's rarely stated on these forums. How do you feel about global warming?

My response in all likelihood belongs on a different forum because it does not deal specifically with "Little Mosque on the Prairie," but here goes; Global warming, now there is a subject that politicians of all stripes like to talk about, but will do nothing about. Kyoto Accord, what a farce! Jean Chretien blindly signed onto this Accord but obviously had no intentions of implementing it, because the truth is that emission levels rose significantly in Canada even after the Kyoto Accord was signed. I feel that as long as our governments at all levels, are following a corporate agenda, nothing is going to change. Oh the Liberals are now talking a good talk, but they have no plan to implement Kyoto without devastating the economy. As long as there is an option for industry to be able to pollute unimpeded governments not enforcing pollution limits, and are going be allowed to buy clean air credits from other jurisdictions, then things will get worse instead of better. As long as we are going to exempt some of the worst polluters IE; China, India, and other third world countries from Kyoto protocols industry is going to carry on polluting.

For instance in Saint John, New Brunswick the Irving Empire are already polluting the air shed, and pollution limits seem to be nothing but unenforceable guidelines as far as the Irving's are concerned, because they regularly exceed those limits. What normally happens when one of the Irving industries exceeds pollution standards is an apology from an Irving spokesperson, and a hollow promise not to let it happen again. Environment NB usually will issue a press release assuring the people that the Irving's have given assurance that it will not happen again, and that no financial consequences are being assessed for the offense. It gets a little tiresome hearing the same excuses over and over, and the same rhetoric coming from the Environment Department.

Now we have an LNG Terminal being build, against the objections of a great many people, because government wholeheartedly blindly supports any proposed projects Irving cares to put forward. The LNG Terminal, (if approval is given from the National Energy Board) will be accompanied by a 30" LNG pipeline which will go directly through the city, including many residential neighbourhoods, past hospitals and schools on it's way to the U.S. border. The preferred route for most city residents is the more direct route, under the Bay of Fundy, but that is being ignored by government, Irving, and the Emera who is going to build and own the pipeline. The only reason for these projects is simply to increase Irving's wealth, and the products produced and carried are primarily for the U.S. market. Sure there will be a number of jobs associated with the construction phase,, and to work at these facilities after they are built, but what good are jobs if the end result is that the emissions will end up killing people? Corporate well being should not be the determining factor when exploring the viability of any project, the impact on the health and well being of humans should always trump corporate profits. All the money in the world is not going to do a person any good if the end result is that pollution from these projects winds up killing the people. Money is nice, but you can't take it with you.

The existing oil refinery alone releases 9,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere daily, and the additional emissions which will be produced from a second refinery is far too much for a community that already sports one of the highest incidents of Asthma per-capita in Canada. What needs to happen is for government to ban completely an industry's option of buying clean air credits, and if they cannot run their industry without polluting, then shut it down. I am not naive enough to imagine governments regardless of what political party they represent will ever tell industry what they will and will not do, instead they will continue to make excuses for industry and their polluting ways.

BubberMiley · April 7, 2007

I'll have to remember never to ask that question again.

BZBee · April 7, 2007

....Global warming, now there is a subject that politicians of all stripes like to talk about, but will do nothing about.....

You mean Canadian politicians of all stripes, right?

Remiel · April 7, 2007

It's fine if they want to set in the States. Like British comedies being exported to the States, the royalties continue to head back to the original creators. In this case, Canadians will still get the money.
And here's the kicker, Little Mosque will still end up on cable TV in the U.S. because the stations are increasingly becoming fans of the original material coming out of Canada.

Why do you find it OK that they want to change the setting of the show for Americans? Aren't you always telling us that we shouldn't worry so much about things being set in Canada? Why dismiss the same behaviour in them?

jdobbin · April 7, 2007

Why do you find it OK that they want to change the setting of the show for Americans? Aren't you always telling us that we shouldn't worry so much about things being set in Canada? Why dismiss the same behaviour in them?

Have I ever said we shouldn't worry about things being set in Canada? I can't recall.

Remiel · April 10, 2007

Well... I do not recall if you said so in so many words, but I think I remember the implication. If I am wrong, I apologize.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

Well... I do not recall if you said so in so many words, but I think I remember the implication. If I am wrong, I apologize.

I think I've said that Canadian based TV and film don't make back their investment back and are rarely watched. The main reason for this is that Canadian TV cannot meet the quantity not quality of American productions.

Is there a need for such programming? That is what the great debate is about. Is there a demand? Well, if demand is gaged by production that pays for itself and gets a large audience, we don't currently have any programming except hockey that pays for itself.

As far as a program like Mosque, I think its setting is great. If it gets bought by the U.S. as a concept, it will follow a long line of British programming that gets licensed there and makes money for companies such as the BBC.

Remiel · April 10, 2007

That is the point though. Why should Americans be somehow incapable of watching a show that is set in the Canadian Prairies? The jokes are not nearly as so foreign as a British show would seem.

White Doors · April 10, 2007

Now we have an LNG Terminal being build, against the objections of a great many people, because government wholeheartedly blindly supports any proposed projects Irving cares to put forward. The LNG Terminal, (if approval is given from the National Energy Board) will be accompanied by a 30" LNG pipeline which will go directly through the city, including many residential neighbourhoods, past hospitals and schools on it's way to the U.S. border. The preferred route for most city residents is the more direct route, under the Bay of Fundy, but that is being ignored by government, Irving, and the Emera who is going to build and own the pipeline. The only reason for these projects is simply to increase Irving's wealth, and the products produced and carried are primarily for the U.S. market. Sure there will be a number of jobs associated with the construction phase,, and to work at these facilities after they are built, but what good are jobs if the end result is that the emissions will end up killing people? Corporate well being should not be the determining factor when exploring the viability of any project, the impact on the health and well being of humans should always trump corporate profits. All the money in the world is not going to do a person any good if the end result is that pollution from these projects winds up killing the people. Money is nice, but you can't take it with you.

Sorry, what's the point here?

You, the great environmentalist want the Irvings to run the LNG pipe int he bay of fundy? Is this the same bay of fundy that the Northern Right whale uses? Is this the same deicate ecology of the Bay of fundy that the finbacks use? The Atlantic Salmon?

WHY would you want this to run in the BAY OF FUNDY as opposed to the city of Saint John? You do know that every house in Calgary for instance is hooked up by such a line? Why are you endorsing ripping up the floor of the Bay of Fundy? Could it be that you doth protest too much? Could it be that your weak protestations have nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with being anti-business?

You do know that those asthma rates are from the old pulp and paper mill, NOT the refinery?

You need to do some research so you don't come across as being so silly on a message board. Also, please stop talking for 'most' Saint Johners.

jdobbin · April 11, 2007

That is the point though. Why should Americans be somehow incapable of watching a show that is set in the Canadian Prairies? The jokes are not nearly as so foreign as a British show would seem.

I'm fairly positive that Canada's Mosque will be bought and shown on U.S. cable.

Time and time again though, American networks have shown they want to see U.S. based stories on the main networks. They routinely buy concepts from the British to stylize into American shows. This will be one of the few times they have bought a Canadians concept.

stignasty · April 11, 2007

'Corner Gas' and 'Little Mosque on the Prairie' end season as ratings stars

Mon Mar 12, 10:08 PM

By Lee-Anne Goodman

TORONTO (CP) - "Little Mosque on the Prairie" joined CTV's "Corner Gas" this year as a Canadian television rarity - a homegrown situation comedy that attracts a million-plus viewers every week, a feat once routinely achieved only by big American shows.

"Corner Gas" has been a ratings juggernaut since its debut three years ago, with not a single show pulling in fewer than a million viewers. This year, an average 1.7 million Canadians tuned in each week, making it the most-watched sitcom on Canadian airwaves.

Nipping at its heels has been CBC's "Little Mosque," the show about devout Muslims living in a small town in the West that became a bona fide prime-time saviour for the struggling network this year.

The show attracted an average 1.2 million viewers for its eight-episode season - quite an accomplishment given that "Little Mosque" was rushed to air in January after CBC brass decided to capitalize on the worldwide buzz about the sitcom and premiere it this winter instead of waiting till next fall.

<snip>

But even though both shows are off the air for months, it appears the stage has been set for a battle royal between the two Canadian sitcom giants. "Corner Gas" recently lost two members of its writing team to "Little Mosque" - supervising producer Paul Mather and story editor Rob Sheridan. Mather will become "Mosque"'s head writer while Sheridan is executive story editor.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070312/...sque_versus_gas

M.Dancer · May 9, 2007

Little Mosque Sold to France and Switzerland

The French will soon be watching some homespun Canadiana – the quirky CBC-TV comedy Little Mosque on the Prairie.
Mary Darling, the show's executive producer, announced Tuesday that the powerful French broadcaster Canal Plus has jumped on board to distribute the show starting in July in France and in French-speaking parts of Switzerland and Africa.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ertainment/home

Somewhere the is a CBC exec who went on a limb for the show and is feeling rather fine....

guyser · May 9, 2007

Somewhere the is a CBC exec who went on a limb for the show and is feeling rather fine....

And frantically searching his contract for any bonus clauses.....

Michael Bluth · October 24, 2007

From the character bio of Fred, the white redneck radio host. Link

Fred describes himself a textbook libertarian: like most bigots.

So the CBC is explicitly using public money to express a preference for political ideologies?

Don't libertarians pay taxes as well?

I guess they do, but that doesn't mean their tax dollars are going to be used in a way respectful of their personal political preferences.

guyser · October 24, 2007

From the character bio of Fred, the white redneck radio host. Link
So the CBC is explicitly using public money to express a preference for political ideologies?

Don't libertarians pay taxes as well?

I guess they do, but that doesn't mean their tax dollars are going to be used in a way respectful of their personal political preferences.

Pssst...it is entertainment.

Sometime in the next ..oh month, there will be a movie/tv show and they will feature bad guys , who in all likelihood have darker skin than the avg canuck , black hair and speak in a foreign tongue. Will that upset you too?

jdobbin · October 24, 2007

Pssst...it is entertainment.

Heh. The CBC loves the publicity. Mosque is doing great in the ratings again this year.

From October 22.

http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/daily/...22/ratings.html

NOW is preceded by Little Mosque on the Prairie, which hit 919,000 last week, up from 750,000.

Edited October 24, 2007 by jdobbin

Michael Bluth · October 24, 2007

Pssst...it is entertainment.
Sometime in the next ..oh month, there will be a movie/tv show and they will feature bad guys , who in all likelihood have darker skin than the avg canuck , black hair and speak in a foreign tongue. Will that upset you too?

If it's entertainment let private money pay for it.

The evidence was finally provided, but time to get rid of the subsidies.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

jdobbin · October 24, 2007

Also doing well according to my link:

Season two of Dragon's Den continued to grow its audience last week, nabbing 504,000 viewers Monday at 8 p.m. opposite CTV's Dancing with the Stars. The third episode of the season saw Dragon's Den up its numbers from its first two, which garnered 389,000 and 461,000, respectively.

Intelligence still suffers in the ratings but it looks like the series concept is about to picked up in the U.S. for networks there.

guyser · October 24, 2007

If it's entertainment let private money pay for it.
Supposedly little mosque is doing well in the ratings. No evidence has been provided, and given the source we'll have to assume it's a fabrication unless he does provide some evidence.

Why? With those ratings it is bringing in money.

So....move it to private broadcast and let CBC spend a little less money and make none? Good idea, get rid of the cash cows too....HNIC, CFL football, Curling....thats one sure smart way to run a business.

I wont argue the waste that can occur at the CBC , but moving what makes money is well kind of goofy.

But you dont want to do anything about the CBC but to kill it , we know that. For reasons that are transparent. Perhaps if they showed a Steve love-in you would be happy?

jdobbin · October 24, 2007

But you dont want to do anything about the CBC but to kill it , we know that. For reasons that are transparent. Perhaps if they showed a Steve love-in you would be happy?

Is this Tory policy to kill the CBC and public funding of television production? It seems some Conservative members might have some inside knowledge on this.

Hydraboss · October 24, 2007

I've never come across any policy to kill the CBC in the Conservative playbooks.

Love to see it, but then the central Canadian pro-everyone else crowd would "make them pay" at the polls. Steve is too scared of his own shadow to do what's right.