> 'Accused' premiered to 8.71 million viewers and a 2.08 rating among adults 18-49 following Fox’s telecast of the NFC divisional playoff game between the San Francisco 49ers and Dallas Cowboys. Both figures are the best same-day Nielsen ratings for a series premiere this season, topping Night Court’s 7.55 million viewers and 0.98 18-49 rating earlier in the week on NBC.

> 'Accused' also had a huge lead-in: The 49ers-Cowboys game averaged 45.65 million viewers for Fox, and almost 24 million of those people stuck around for the 11-minute postgame show. The drama moves into its regular home Tuesday following the season premiere of 911: Lone Star. Two other Fox shows, Monarch and Alert: Missing Persons Unit, also debuted following (regular season) NFL games this year and lost more than half of their post-football audiences in their next outing.

The show has an interesting premise. But this debuts “twist” ie- what the guy was accused of doing- hit me with a huge “really??” When it was revealed. Like that’s what we’re going with here???

Of all the teases the episode was giving you, felt like it chose the most boring option for the character to be going to trial over

I think a stable of hey it's that guy may drive this show for a while

[deleted]

It's a huge rating that basically signifies nothing because of how it was obtained. Tuesday airings without the monster NFL booster will tell the tale.

This show is off the charts awesome and had me still thinking about it when it was long over.

Each week will be different cast and different story. I am hooked for sure its not one to have one only in the background you need to pay attention the whole time.

I found this show to be important especially as parent.

​

Edit: oops had to edit I may have accidently given spoiler so I edited it new to Redditt so sorry,

[deleted]

The NFL game had almost 46 million viewers, that's insane.

I just happened to flick to Fox after Last of Us and I was enamored with it. It was pretty damn good.

I think I liked criminal: UK better but the first episode was okay

Criminal UK is splendid. The Kit Harington episode was extremely thought provoking

Having seen a few episodes now, this show just felt to me like FOX angling for Best Guest Actor Emmy noms. With an anthology starring a murder’s row of talent across generations of television royalty, it feels like throwing 22 different potential nominees at the wall to see who sticks

One of the only cable network shows that I would actually consider watching based on the commercial.

Or at least leave on the TV for awhile after the game to see what the premise is exactly

He’s really incredible

I wasn’t impressed at all. That Michael Chiklis episode was so cliche and predictable.

"Alert" has already settled into the typical Fox numbers of sub-2 million viewers after getting an NFL lead-in a few weeks ago.

It was also just so ham handed and bad.

The prosecutor’s final statement was 2 statements about the accused’s behavior that literally contradicted each other, in the same sentence.

Also, I know it’s hard to do character develop, but they really made that mom a barely human dunce.

Same

Even with all the fucking commercials there is nothing like the NFL

Just finished episode 2, and boy did it annoy me. Deaf womwn gives a sob story so they just let her off? Give her a slap on the wrist sentence, but she’s clearly guilty!

I like the folks behind the show though (Howard Goedon and Alex Gansa were writers on X-Files in the early days and Gordon later created 24).

Most entertaining sport out there

This is typical of any American adaptation of a British original; you're better off watching the latter to see better writing.

Are you aware that it's an adaptation of a British show with the same name?

Perhaps, but this is the concept of the series, as it was done in the original British version.

After watching episode 2 as well I'm starting to see what the problem with this show is. I thought it was going to be a rotating celeb each week and you don't know if they're guilty, and all we see are the trial aspects to determine their guilt. After the verdict we find out who they really are.

This show is going in a much lamer direction. The 'crimes' they're accused of are so toothless, and everyone so far is an innocent do-gooder besieged by annoying assholes. But if they're all done in one episodes, who cares? Certainly we can milk more from "This week, Lous CK plays an accused date rapist. Is he guilty?" (Verdict: Yes)

The writing is also not very good. I'm convinced that the adage that there is no bad writing, just bad actors, is simply not true. Chiklis is a great actor and he is playing it as if he sincerely believes every thing he has to do. But it's such cliched, hokey NBC sitcom-levels of decisions being made that you can't take it seriously.

I also don't really get why it was a demerit against him that they keep bringing up "he wanted to kill his own son!" Uh, you're saying he didn't do enough to stop him. By making it clear that he intended to kill him, it asks every one to put themself in his position and realize, yes, he did enough. This would vindicate him in the eyes of the public and the charges would quickly be dropped.

It reminds me of the verdict in A Time to Kill, but that's a whole other can of worms (but that's another where he committed the crime he was accused of, and everyone says let's let him go, we like this guy!)

And also…I didn’t realize it was illegal to give someone money and them committing a crime with it- even if you didn’t know about it. I guess they were trying to prove that because he read the book, he knew- but how can they prove that? Wouldn’t his wife (the only witness) have spousal privilege?

Like I said, of all the “crimes” he could have done, they chose the weakest one

She was clearly guilty but there was also no actual harm done (the baby was returned the same day) and the woman had her reasons that she felt she was protecting the child from abuse.

I feel like I've seen this same sort of story written by the same people and the same actors multiple times (maybe I just watched too many seasons of Switched at Birth). It's heartbreaking though and I'm sure common. Parents of deaf kids who don't bother to learn sign language.

Yap

Her plan was to legalize surrogate kidnappings! Just because she didn’t actually succeed doesn’t mean she shouldn’t suffer some penalty, however minor.

But of course this all speaks to why the whole notion of surrogacy is a bad idea.

Nah, it wasn’t on Network TV it probably would have had a chance at being good.

I thought the same thing.

The first episode was bad, like really bad, no prosecutor would waste their taking such a lame baseless empty charge to court anywhere in the world.

But I thought hey come on, opening night nerves, right!? So give it a second episode to for a chance to impress.

LMFAO no seriously LMFAO

>!Kidnaps a fucking baby and the judge says she thinks it would be a miscarriage of justice to proceed and there is no evidence the baby was ever in danger!!! She fucking kidnapped a baby FFS!!<

LMFAO no seriously L M F A O

How tf are so many people in American prisons if that's a true representation of the American judicial system?

So yeah, the show did not impress, and it's only going to continue in the same vein, I'm out.

The notion of surrogacy is not a bad idea, at all. There a plenty of women surrogates that don’t proceed to kidnap them and the child lives a happy and healthy life with their family.

This episode literally made me stop watching the show.

So fucking stupid

Yep I bailed, which is a shame because I liked the UK original, and it leaves me without a good courtroom procedural to watch.

Just finished episode 2. Won’t be watching episode 3

I think it makes sense from the prosecution. If he wanted to kill his own son then he knew his son was capable of doing something bad, but ultimately didn't do enough to stop him and even gave him the money which helped him carry it out

It's not a good strategy because it's playing a bluff on the jury. You can't present anything in a trial that's a roll of the dice, you only say stuff where you know what the outcome will be.

The second point is coming at it from a more reddity/social justice view point I feel, whether he went through with it or not or should have is irrelevant to the central notion of if he was an accessory, and this is just conjecture essentially.