I watched every episode from the beginning but toward the end I was ready to stop watching. If it ran another season I may not have watched. It show evolved from a cool cop show that used a super smart brother to use math to solve crimes into a politically correct show preaching about global warming.
The crime solving became secondary to there green agenda.
The reason I came here was I saw Navi Rawat in a zombie move and had a hard time remember where I saw her before. When I figured out where I saw here before it reminded me how much I missed how great this show was in the early years
By the way Navi Rawat is an Indian playing and American Indian in the zombie movie; if I said playing a native american it would sound as funny
The most unnecessary word is actual. You can remove it from any sentence and it wouldn't matter.
I agree with you, but I also feel that when the amount of air time was increasing so much to deal with Don's brother Charlie and his wife to be; it was just to far removed from a Police Show and became a love story - romantic-drama show - many of us left.
Here's wishing you a great day and a better tomorrow.
I agree with both of you. The show started to go downhill when it became too preachy of certain political views and when too much time was spent on the Charlie/Amita relationship. There were times towards the end when it seemed Don and Charlie barely said two words to each other.
"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G
Seems to be a common pattern in many TV shows: Start out with a cool unique idea and focus on it. When you get a following, ignore what gained you your fans and overload it with relationship and drama crap. Numb3rs did it. Bones did it second season, but backed away from it a bit. House did it. 2400 did it. Etc. It's like every show has to become a stupid soap opera or some sort.
I agree. There are several reasons for such changes including:
The actors get bored with the format and want more emotive "actorly" stuff to do as opposed to just, as they see it, rattling off plot points and exposition. The longer a show goes on and the harder it is to get the stars coming back, the more their "great" ideas for new directions are pandered to.
The people making the show often get bored with making the show before the audience do so they come up with new ideas to liven things up - often misguidedly.
The writers run out of plot ideas if the format was fairly restrictive in the first place - how many different types of crime can be solved by maths? More relationshippy stuff, humour etc might be injected to disguise increasingly thin or repetitious plots.
The makers start taking too much notice of the most fanatical fans - more of a risk now, with so much contact over social media, than in the past. The obsessive fans might clamour for more of a particular arcane aspect of the show when the more general, sane, viewer doesn't. The makers often don't realize that those making the loudest noise are not speaking for the majority.
A series starts out with everyone finding their feet, with often interesting rough edges. Sooner or later the makers become more aware of what "works" and the scope of the vision narrows at the same time that everyone involved gets overconfident about the most obviously popular aspects. That's why shows, and especially actors performances, often become a parody of themselves. "They love my character's flamboyance/moodiness/clumsiness etc, I'll do lots more of that!"
I baled out of Numbers after about 2 or 3 series so I can't say that all these apply specifically to this show, but from what others have said here at least some seem to.
I'm glad, I'm not the only one that felt this way. I started watching this show in reruns, last year, as it comes on around 5/6am, here... watch it before going to bed. I like the show and how Charlie uses math to solve crimes, but the ongoing relationship, brother-to-brother stuff is spent too much time on. I sometimes forget what the crime story is about, b/c the drama stuff is so think. ...a shame, as I like the characters and theme.
Two things distinguished Numb3rs from other procedurals--the incorporation of mathematics into the crime-solving process, and the personal dynamic between the characters, particularly within the Eppes family. Those were the show's STRENGTHS, not its weaknesses.
The show was cancelled for one reason only--money. It was 6 years old, production costs were rising while share points were not rising. Period.
Right there with you, jean. $$$$ is the usual reason things happen when there is no other clear reason to explain something. People who come here to complain about a show that involved science and math daring to talk about climate change have an agenda. Climate change has only been made political by nimcompoops on the right. Nearly all legit scientists agree that humans have had at least *some* impact on our world. Maybe they could do a special TV movie--but it's probably too late.
It's definitely money. The ratings were not bad, they had slipped a little, but not very much. The show seemed to be bigger to produce at times, with more CSI meets NCIS type cop stuff, and having things like members of the LA Lakers show up was silly. They could have gone back to more of the formulas used in seasons 2-4 and worked on the mystery and math angle, but I think they just figured they would cut and run.
The truth is that CBS could have kept Numb3rs, Cold Case, and Ghost Whisperer, as all were holding okay in ratings, but they high hopes for new shows, such as Miami Medical, a Jerry Bruckheimier production, but it flopped big time.
We all knew something was 'up' when it was announced mid-season that the run had been cut for season 6 from the usual 24 to 16 episodes. Initially the network said this was to allow Miami Medical a shot at the ratings, but I think we all knew what it meant - cancellation. The fact that MM tanked in such spectacular style just goes to prove what a balls-up of a decision it was and CBS's ratings overall since they cancelled some of their best loved shows, including N3, have nosedived. The current debacle over the suspension of production of Two and a Half Men just goes to show that CBS is in trouble drama-wise. While H5O (a chemical element or a tv show? Damn my pesky habit of using acronyms!) might offer them a bit of a ratings bail-out, they really need to get some new ideas in if they're to survive the ratings war.
Bringing back N3 would make a lot of us dedicated fans deeply joyful and there'd be much 'Snoopy' dancing if it were to happen, but the odds of them slapping their foreheads and going, "What were we thinking?!?" and making urgent phone calls to the cast's agents and Nick and Cheryl is unlikely. But that won't stop me or any of the other N3 fans out there carrying a torch for what was one of the most innovative and daring drama shows in years.
Two things distinguished Numb3rs from other procedurals--the incorporation of mathematics into the crime-solving process, and the personal dynamic between the characters, particularly within the Eppes family. Those were the show's STRENGTHS, not its weaknesses.
The show was cancelled for one reason only--money. It was 6 years old, production costs were rising while share points were not rising. Period.
The idea that the quality went down is crap.
Numb3rs succeeded for the same reason NCIS succeeds: engaging characters. People grew to care about Alan, Don, Charlie, Amita, et. al. Without those relationships the plots were meaningless. Makes me wonder about the people who complain that there wasn't enough math on the show or that the character conflicts should have been downplayed for the math. Why are these folks bothering to watch any TV dramas? Wouldn't they be happier with dry documentaries instead?
reply share
I thought it went downhill in season 5 when the show started focussing too much on including Robin and Amita more. There was less Don/Charlie and Don/Charlie/Alan time, which was the basis of making it a great show, the interaction they had with each other. Also, they lost a strong character in Megan and it really threw off the balance of the FBI team; they were great together but once Megan left and was replaced by Nicki etc - not so good.
Robin and Amita really managed to suck the life out of each episode they were in. The episodes which didn't feature Robin and Amita (Robin especially, awful character) were much better.
I can put your suspicions to rest. There was no "green agenda" on the show.
The "agenda" for the show was mathematics, science and rational thought.
If there are some very conservative-minded fans of the show out there, you were bound to be annoyed by something at some point, because many in the right-wing camp of politics tend to be science deniers, even when the science is irrefutable. Numb3rs was never about politics or political messaging. It was always about science and rationality.
Climate change is a reality. The idea that the current warming of the planet has been greatly influenced by humans spewing carbon dioxide in the air is a reality that virtually all climatologists agree on. Since this thread was originally created we have seen evidence of extreme weather (predicted by global warming models) all around the planet. 2013 was one of the hottest years on record. Global temperatures have been rising steadily for the past ten years or more. The Arctic Ocean almost completely melts in the summer. That has never happened until very recently. While right-wing politicians continue to try and force their "head in the sand" approach to the problem on the rest of us, the impact of global warming continues with severe droughts, severe flooding, severe storms and the sea levels rising. The Republican party in the US has gone so far as to introduce a bill in Congress that would make it impossible to study climate change. That's right. We're not even supposed to study it anymore. Why would conservatives want us to stop studying climate change? I can only guess that they already don't like the answers that science can provide us with.
As for episodes that might hint at a "green agenda" I can only say that Alan Eppes is a forward-thinking architect who wants to reduce his impact on the environment and save money. The episode where Alan considers equipping the house with solar panels was inspired by a conversation the creators had with Bill Nye. Bill explained to them how he had installed solar panels in his house, and that during most of the day, his electric meter runs backwards! I.e. the city owes him money. Now what true conservative would not love that situation? Not having to rely on the local government for your electricity?
If you felt that other "liberal" types of messages seeped into the series, I can provide a number of arguments why there was no concerted effort to do so. First of all, the CBS audience has very large number of conservative-minded viewers. They would not have tolerated an obviously liberal-messaged show. Second, the writers were asked to write from the point of view of the characters. Since many of the characters are scientists, a more liberal point-of-view is simply something that matches what you find in university science departments. That's not to say that scientists cannot be conservative. Some of them are. But by and large, most scientists, if they are politically-minded, tend to fall in the progressive camp. Why? Because science and rational thought lead them there.
People who engage in fact-based evidence do not to fall for simplistic political slogans like, "Drill baby, drill!" They believe in studying real world problems. Not banning the study of real world problems.
Fans of Numb3rs have a wide variety of opinions on "what went wrong." For some it was the character of Nikki. Others it was the unraveling of the character of Larry. Others disliked the stories of Don and his various women. Others thought is was the increasingly fantastic math theories that Charlie would present. Others still thought it was the fact that there was less and less emphasis on the Eppes family.
All I can tell you, as someone who has experience in the industry, is that when creators conjure up a show, they are not always completely in charge of the show. This is especially true for creators (like Nick and Cheryl) who had never had a TV show before and were completely new to television production. Even on a show like Numb3rs where I have heard there was genuinely a lot of camaraderie, there are always different points of view about how best to evolve the show. It is a very collaborative medium and creators have to be flexible. Creators have to incorporate the intentions of the network, the studio, and sometimes showrunners. They also have to work with a full staff of writers. On a show like Numb3rs with all the math and science, I would imagine that it is not the easiest show for even veteran writers to write. It would seem to me that very early in the episode development process those exotic mathematical concepts must be incorporated into the who-dunnit narrative, And not something "plugged in." Watching the show it felt like the writers were given the task of making the math as organic to the story as possible. And we can all see in each episode how well this was accomplished or not. And as far as making the characters as consistent as possible and the direction in which they evolve is typically a process that includes all those points of view I've mentioned. It also can include the actor's interpretation of his character. There's also just the hard reality that some actors decide they want to leave the show. From what I've read I think this applies to Sabrina Lloyd and Diane Farr. I'm also a bit flummoxed how other fans cannot understand why Larry went into space and left the show for a time. If anyone was paying attention, Peter MacNicol was on 24 during that time. Seems pretty obvious to me that MacNicol wanted a break to explore a different character on a different show.
Lastly, we are talking about a show that really had no reason to be on a major network. Seriously, a show about a mathematician? A show that walks the audience through at least two mathematical concepts every episode? When you think about it, you have to give CBS enormous credit for believing in a show like Numb3rs and supporting it for six long seasons.
If Numb3rs had been on a network like HBO, it would have been a very different show. The writers and creators would only have 12-16 episodes to produce and would be able to take the time to pick the very best premises and lovingly craft each episode. But Numb3rs was on CBS and the writers had to typically produce 22-24 episodes each season. Not every one of them is going to be great.
One very experienced television creator/showrunner told me something another even more experienced showrunner told him: "Each season you will have 3 to 4 episodes that you will feel proud for having made. You will also have 3 to 4 real stinkers. The rest will be so-so."
When I look at Numb3rs and the vast majority of broadcast network dramas, this quote rings incredibly true.
Thanks for a well reasoned and balanced insight into the situation, mkword. I personally never thought anything 'went wrong' with the show - it was pretty clear that the decision was a network one (as I said back in this thread in 2011), and hey, that's life. Shows come and go, what matters is the legacy they leave behind. Numb3rs was unique, and there hasn't been a show to match it since (that's purely my opinion, and I fully admit to being a full-on fan of the show so sure, I'm biased!). The fact that we're still talking about it more than three years after its cancellation proves that fact. There have been different shows that have their own merits, but comparing oh, say, NCIS or CSI to Numb3rs is like comparing apples and oranges.
As for any 'green agenda' - man, I must have missed that, because I thought all it was doing was reflecting current thinking in a measured and responsive way, not pushing some political idealism. My father is one of the most highly respected environmental scientists in the business (he's still consulting all over the world in his late 70s), so I've been discussing this issue with him (as well as other issues such as the fluoridation of water supplies) for years. And even with perhaps a little more of a scientific insight into the whole 'green' argument regarding climate change than perhaps other viewers have, I genuinely didn't see any particular agenda being pushed. People of all walks of life (and not just scientists) are concerned with what is happening to our planet, and I think the show simply reflected that concern. It's a 21st century problem that affects every single one of us. Naturally, an architect like Alan (who came from the hippy era anyway) would be interested about green energy - in fact, it would be part of his remit. As an architect he would be involved in environmental impact assessments on a regular basis anyway, as they are part and parcel of town planning, development and construction. So why shouldn't he take that knowledge and apply it to his own property?
Numb3rs was a brave call by CBS. The fact that it ran to six seasons (well, five and a half, but that's another argument for another day, 'Miami-bloody-Medical!) demonstrated that the network was willing to take a chance on a programme that really shouldn't have worked in the first place, if you're talking about pandering to the lowest common denominator. In fact, it actually credited its audience with the ability to think, consider and understand scientific and mathematical principles, as well as ethical and emotional ones too. It didn't dumb down with on-the-nose dialogue, telling rather than showing (apart from Charlie's explanations) or employing obvious plot devices - techniques that other shows rely upon to keep their audience. Okay, it didn't get it right every time, but I've seen a damn sight worse - both from US dramas and our own efforts here in the UK too. So all credit to Cheryl, Nick and the cast and crew for taking a challenging idea and turning it into something that a pretty intelligent audience did, in fact, love. Relatable characters, the right mix of action, drama and character development, unusual and challenging ideas and a good dollop of humour made it a well-balanced and successful show.
Damn, I miss it. I'm going to have to go and do an N3 DVD marathon now...
Anoraknophobia - noun: Pathological fear of outdoor clothing.
Just an observation re the "green agenda" complaint. For some people, the mere mention of an idea with which they disagree equates to "pushing" that idea. I think it's wise in general to pay very little attention to such complaints.
The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde
If you felt that other "liberal" types of messages seeped into the series, I can provide a number of arguments why there was no concerted effort to do so. First of all, the CBS audience has very large number of conservative-minded viewers. They would not have tolerated an obviously liberal-messaged show. Second, the writers were asked to write from the point of view of the characters. Since many of the characters are scientists, a more liberal point-of-view is simply something that matches what you find in university science departments. That's not to say that scientists cannot be conservative. Some of them are. But by and large, most scientists, if they are politically-minded, tend to fall in the progressive camp. Why? Because science and rational thought lead them there.
mkword
Numb3rs was a brave call by CBS. The fact that it ran to six seasons (well, five and a half, but that's another argument for another day, 'Miami-bloody-Medical!) demonstrated that the network was willing to take a chance on a programme that really shouldn't have worked in the first place, if you're talking about pandering to the lowest common denominator. In fact, it actually credited its audience with the ability to think, consider and understand scientific and mathematical principles, as well as ethical and emotional ones too. It didn't dumb down with on-the-nose dialogue, telling rather than showing (apart from Charlie's explanations) or employing obvious plot devices - techniques that other shows rely upon to keep their audience.
kes-cross
Thanks, both of you, for such great posts; I really enjoyed reading them in full.
I was so hopeful that Numb3rs would counter the thread of anti-intellectualism that runs through this culture. But given who the Republicans are considering for the highest position in our government, I am losing hope fast. We need another show like Numb3rs that makes it 'cool' to use science and rational thought.
"You're so analytical! Sometimes you just have to let art... flow... over you." The Big Chill
I really don't see that anything "went wrong" with Numb3rs whatsoever.
While the series did have SOME episodes dealing with the "green agenda", insofar as they dealt with Papa Allen Eppes wanting to incorporate "green technology" into his home, it DID NOT "push" any sort of "agenda" at all but merely related a contemporary issue that many home owners are presently grappling with just to save some $$, more than any concern for the environment. Moreover, there were many episodes sprinkled through out the whole series that did, in fact, deal with some very controversial social topics in a very controversial way such as the tendency of the police to ignore violence against prostitutes just because they are "whores", or about human cloning. In these "controversial" episodes, some of the core characters did express attitudes that were very cynical of the "Establishment" position, but I see this "controversial" aspect of N3 as just a very small part of the overall complexity & intricacy of N3 that makes it such a cinematic wonder & intrinsically interesting. Truly, the person who started this discussion thread commenting on the "green agenda" of N3 is very myopic, & just a Conservative Moron.
While it is true, as others in this discussion thread have noted, that towards the end of the series, the Don/Robin romance & the Charlie/Amita romance became more pronounced 1) I don't see where these romantic relationships took that much attention away from the crime fighting/math aspect of the show & 2) N3 is such a complex brew of cinematic elements such as romance, crime fighting, science information show, drama, action show, etc that it seems amazing that the writers were able to skillfully juggle all these elements into seamless coherent episodes for as long as they did.
Some folks in this discussion thread have tried to put forth practical reasons for the CBS cancellation of N3 such as the need to make way for a new series Miami Medical. However, the simple fact is that every TV series, no matter how "good" it is, must end sooner or later & 6 seasons is a pretty decent run for N3, especially given the realities of the highly competitive world of TV show programming. Moreover, the series seems to have come to at end at a very appropriate place with Charlie & Amita newly married & on their way to Cambridge England for short term visiting professorships, with eccentric Prof Larry Fleinhart seemingly finding a personal resolution after his bizarre physical & spiritual Odyssey that ran through a trip on the Space Shuttle, his unlikely romance with FBI agent Megan, his stay at a Hindu monastery & his seclusion in the Mojve Desert, & with Don's series long existential & emotional developmental crises seeming to have found some kind of resolution in his marriage proposal to Robin & her acceptance.
In short, I just don't think that anything whatsoever "went wrong" with Numb3rs at all. It was a very successful TV series with a more than decent life span that seemed to end at an appropriate spot in the story line.
The crime solving became secondary to their green agenda.
There are three "There"s in English. You chose the wrong one. Yours should have been "their.'
There, their, and they're....... they all have a different meanings and a different usage. Crazy English language. Same pronunciation (they all sound the same), different spellings and meanings.