Biting the Hand That Programs

I will NEVER forgive either Milch or HBO for cancelling DEADWOOD. Now I hear the "guaranteed" 3 hours of movie wrap ups are gone as well. May you both burn in the fires of mediocrity for years to come!

I guess I agree to a degree, James - we shouldn't fault UPN/CW for cancelling Veronica Mars when it brought such a different show to the air for 3 seasons, or FOX for Arrested Development.

I think the problem fans of these shows, like me, have with the networks is not that these shows were cancelled, as much as WHY they were cancelled - low ratings. I understand these networks are in business, but to me (and other fans of these shows) their low ratings were not SOLELY due to the show being inpenetrable or ahead of its time, but rather failures of the networks in question to find steady slots in the lineup for the show, failures to promote the show adequately, and failure to leverage rerun/syndication possibilities to grow a larger audience (CLEARLY Fox could have aired AD on FX to help build its audience...many Buffy fans first came to the show after seeing it on repeat on FX, so why couldn't the same have happened with AD?)

The other larger problem I have with the cancellation of Veronica Mars and Arrested Development is somewhat academic - they were "replaced" with inferior (and less successful) programming. I mean, how many terrible shows (Stacked? Happy Hour?) did FOX end up trying after Arrested Development? At least AD got critical (and Emmy, and Golden Globe) acclaim for FOX...those other shows brought ratings that were just as low (if not lower) and no critical buzz acclaim. Ditto for Veronica Mars - is CW Now or whatever it is, or Life is Wild really a better proposition for CW than Veronica Mars?

Of course, the only way to come up with the NEXT great show is to cancel shows and bring on new ones, some of which will miss. But that doesn't cushion the loss of AD or VM for us fans, particularly when so many of the shows are clear misses.

Also, contrast that with what NBC is currently doing - keeping The Office and 30 Rock on despite ratings problems.

Or, more importantly its efforts in support of Friday Night Lights. Friday Night Lights marathons have aired on Bravo; NBC has offered money-back guarantees on DVD sales of the show in an attempt to build its audience; and the show was even moved to a less competitive night (Fridays, which may be a kiss of death) in the hopes that it could grow and survive in a less competitive environment. At this point, if Friday Night Lights was cancelled (after allowing the writers/directors/actors to satisfyingly "wrap" up the story - something Veronica Mars was NEVER allowed to do), I couldn't fault NBC - I feel like they've done just about EVERYTHING they can do as a business and network to build that show successfully, and the audience didn't follow (despite many of us being VERY passionate about the show).

I am curious to see Laughlin, but let me vent for a second:
1) Yes, CBS should be praised for trying something different. They should be criticized for not doing it well.
2) I am SO TIRED of hearing about COP ROCK. Yes it was a disaster but that was a long time ago and of relevance only to a certain category of cranky old white dudes known as TV critics and folks like us. To the rest of the public, not so much. I bet your editors make you exlain what Cop Rock is in order to make the reference (..." a failed TV musical by...")
PS... and such an easy association to make - what's next, calling Laughlin the Ishtar or Heaven's Gate of TV? Boring and played out.
3) Did Garth Ancier "not get" Freaks and Geeks or did he "get" that it would never be a hit with the wide audience. He's a smart guy; I am sure he "got" it.
4) I loved Arrested Development too. It was never going to be a hit, and that's the business FOX is in, whether we like it or not. It had a lot of cracks at the pinata; the people decided, and decided they wanted more hours of Family Guy and American Idol. What can you do? I mean, besides buying the DVD for your private viewing pleasure or whining on the Internet.

Let's not forget there was only supposed to be one more season of Deadwood anyways, so it's no great loss. I think HBO was intrigued by JfC and needed a buzz-worthy drama to take over for The Sopranos, so they gave it a shot. I liked it but I'm kind of surprised people are campaigning for another season (I just want an explanation for that "Dr. Smith returned 20 years younger from Cincinnati" line in the finale.)

I'm definitely on the side of taking risks. It's easy to criticize networks for canceling your favorite show, but as long as network TV is advertiser supported, it's going to play to the lowest common denominator. What I'd really like to see are the pilots that the networks passed on because they were too risky -- those are probably all the best series.

So in conclusion, I don't blame CBS for making Viva Laughlin. I just blame them for putting it on the schedule instead of Babylon Fields.

@chaddogg: I'm talking totally off the cuff here, but the fact that Buffy reran on FX and AD didn't may have had (partly?) to do with the fact that Buffy was a 20th Century Fox production, and AD was from Sony Pictures Television. Don't take that as gospel, though.

For all that, I guess Fox didn't do all it could for AD. But it didn't do nothing--it's initial scheduling, in the Sunday-night block (after The Simpsons, right?) was probably the most compatible and attractive spot Fox had on the schedule.

To me it was a different siituation than that with Freaks and Geeks, where NBC put it on the schedule and literally, almost immediately started to assume that it would be cancelled. It was one of the last original series to be scheduled on a Saturday night, then it was put on hiatus for baseball and bounced around from there.

Then again, if I'm to be totally honest with myself, would it have been different if NBC had put it at 9 p.m. Thursday, or in some other prime slot of real-estate? I'd like to think so, but I have a hard time believing it.

What might have saved Freaks and Geeks would have been a time machine--having been created six or seven years later. iTunes, and the growing power of niche audiences (because of the diminished overall audience) might have kept it on the air.

@ Jim_ATL: What I've heard/read/been told is that Ancier--an East Coast guy--was never really sympatico with the Midwestern vibe of F&G, and pestered Apatow and Feig with notes that the kids should have more "victories." (Admittedly, these reports are from pro-Apatovian forces.) Ancier was a great programmer at The WB, but that was the kind of show he was more likely to get--telegenic, attractive shows about kids who were essentially winners, in the conventional sense.

I'm really curious how many of you Cop Rock knockers actually saw the show. I have it on tape and watch it every couple of years, and have shown it to friends (who have, strangely enough, remained friends). Yes, it's a weird show, but it's not nearly as bad as a lot of other shows out there! And to still have it be brought up as the yardstick by which every other show is measured...... give me a break! Let's bury it with Ishtar and Heaven's Gate. Thank you, Jim ATL. Enough is enough. Let it go, guys.

@beerbaron: My take on JFC, and some day I'll do a whole post on this, is: HBO made the show because, if David Milch successfully pulled off the show he was trying to make, it would have been the greatest TV series ever made. You have David Milch willing to take a swing at the fences like that, and you're HBO, you let him do it--money and his already-existing great show be damned.

Then he made the show and, oh well, he didn't manage to pull it off, as happens sometimes. So it's understandable that it got canned.

And thus with one comment I have managed to piss off BOTH the JFC and the Deadwood fans at once. Has anyone ever accomplished that?

Given how hard it is to simply get a TV show made and on the air *and* how many points of failure exist (bad casting, bad timeslot, bad marketing, etc.), it behooves all of us to be grateful for the quality TV that does manage to squeak through and land in our living rooms. Consider every good episode of every great show a gift, and be generous in forgiving network execs and showrunners alike when and if they eventually drop the ball.

It's something to think about every time someone throws around the phrase "jump the shark." Rare is the show that can achieve greatness, and rarer still are the ones that go out without decline. For me, the cautionary tale is Sliders - a moderately enjoyable series on Fox that was massacred in its move to Sci-Fi Channel by key cast and producer defections coupled with substantial budget cuts and a move from Canada to the Universal backlot. I have to believe the fans that petitioned to save the show would have thought twice if they knew how excruciating its final two seasons would be.

Nice post & good conversation. To self-promote a bit, last spring I blogged about the odd nature of American television's definition of success as the infinity model, where good things never end, and endings equal failure. But endings are good - stories in other media are judged by their endings, and few people want to read an endless book, watch an endless film, etc. In most other countries, television series are designed to end after a fairly brief run - but in the US, endings seem to always be a mark of failure.

While I certainly would have loved to see more of F&G, Firefly, AD, etc., I'm content knowing that they're perfect in their abbreviated run. Allowing shows to keep going just to keep going rarely pays off creatively, and can even turn fans against the glory days. In an ideal world, producers would be allowed to set the terms of their own stories ending - perhaps LOST's negotiation will be a precedent for future shows to embrace conclusions?

For the longest time I thought Freaks and Geeks aired on FOX. Undeclared aired on Fox. I think.

CBS defintily took a chance this year with its programming. And now it's beginning to look quite clear why they decided to bring back Jericho. Cane would be on the verge of cancellation if Viva, Laughlin looked liked a promising series. But CBS can't cancel all their new shows...can they? The one series I have heard some good things about is Swingtown which I guess is a midseason replacement.

The problem is that CBS has branded itself as the crime procedural network (except for Monday night comedy). It's kind of wierd to think of the offical number one network as struggling. But it does struggle when it come to buzz and demographic ratings. They need to produce some truly great shows if they want to change how they're perceived.

@James

Did you ever see the Babylon Fields pilot. I heard that it was a lot better that Moonlight but yet Moonlight got picked up over it. Variety also reported a while back that they may still pick it up but I am guessing it's too late by now.

In response to your question: Is it worse to betray a risky idea or never to take the risk in the first place? I would absolutely say that it is worse not to take the risk in the first place. Now, granted i have not seen Viva Laughlin yet, or Cop Rock for that matter, but i still applaud CBS for taking the risk in the first place no matter what the end result is. Most everything on TV right now (with a few exceptions) has a very been there done that, stupid sitcom feel to it and I was really excited when i saw the promos for Viva. Well see how it is but I'm definitely going to check it out tonight.

@CarolinaBlue

Personally, I take the opposite position from your own; I think it's worse to betray a risky idea than to not take one in the first place. The reason goes like this: a show that is never made does not stop a similar show from being made in the future. However, a poorly realized yet novel idea can retard development of similar (good) shows in the future. I believe the highly imitative nature of broadcast television makes networks especially susceptible to this.

That said, let me emphasize that this applies only to shows that are _betrayed_, not those that fail on other merits.

Is the problem then that these networks are aiming too high with these really great shows, towards the thin upper range cusp of the bell curve upwards of the 85th percentile? Do networks have to aim square at the center of that bell curve, dumb it down a bit, and serve patent mediocrity?

There is a reason that crap tends to sell: Because lot's of people want to buy it.

But isn't that a cop out?

Isn't there a bit more incentive to capture a smarter, more aesthetically-minded audience? (ie the average income and spending of this demographic)