I don't hate FOX because they canceled Firefly
No, you just call Firefly "regrettably short lived" and you put a poster of the Firefly cast with the caption "Dear FOX you suck hard", but that doesn't mean you care that they canceled Firefly.
Again, you are being incredibly selective with what you read. Did I say that I didn't care that FOX canceled
Firefly? The answer is a resounding
no. What I sad was:
I don't hate FOX because they canceled Firefly and in fact, I didn't watch Firefly in its first run so I didn't know any better. I hate FOX because it is run by monkeys.
Firefly is just an example of the many horrible things that FOX has done for the last 20 years regarding quality programming and it's not just because it was canceled. It has to do with the history of that show and the network and it's inidicative of their incompetence.
As I've noted on the blog (and in my last post here) I've only come to the realization that I hate FOX recently and when I say recently, I mean within the last seven days. If the issue was
Firefly don't you think I would have hated them a lot sooner... like seven years sooner?
Examples of genre shows that FOX gave a chance? Ummm... Dollhouse, Sarah Connor Chronicles, Fringe, Human Target? I'm pretty sure none of these shows would have lasted more than 13 episodes on any other major network.
So your standard is the same as FOX's: 13 episodes is by definition, "giving a series a chance." We'll have to disagree on that.
And again, my complaint with FOX isn't necessarily about genre shows but since that particular can of worms has been opened let's just take a look at
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
As a mid-season replacement, airing only nine episodes in 2008 it was the highest rated new show of the 2007 -2008 averaging 11.4 million viewers per week. So tell me how, if FOX is such a well-run network, they screwed that one up a mere four months later?
Again, more recently, just take a look at what they did to
the Good Guys and what they did to
Lone Star.
But another thing, as much as I hate
Dollhouse, how is dumping that show on Friday nights out-of-the-gate giving that show a chance?
They get a big F-You from me because they are a poorly run network... period.
They went from a joke "fourth network" in the 1980s to consistently commanding
higher ad rates than any other broadcast network. They had the most watched program of the entire last decade.
I've addressed the issue of
American Idol. Are you just looking at the pictures? I ask this because that seems to be all that you're commenting on.
Here's the second comment in the link you posted:
Aquat1cF1sh said:
I wonder what Fox's average would be without Idol.
...which is the only question that needs to be asked. Also, that was Q1 and I imagine that Q2 is as equally impressive. What about Q3 and Q4?
The only reason FOX has had any success is because they have had a handful of successful shows that they have MILKED TO DEATH.
At the top of that list is
American Idol and I go into detail as to why the success of
American Idol should mean the success for other scripted shows but with FOX, it never works out that way.
Here’s the thing about that: a successful show should be able to give a network a lot of leeway with their programming and give a lot of other shows a chance to build an audience and become successful. What this means is that a show, for example, such as American Idol, can make enough money to basically support the growth of shows that are critically acclaimed however struggle in the ratings. This is not a new concept in either film or cinema.
I explain it in more detail as well but i'm not going to post the whole blog post. If you're interested, you know where it is.
Despite what you think of their shows, FOX is not a "poorly run" network
From a standpoint of audiences who enjoy quality, scripted television, they are a terribly run network. Like I said, if they want to hang their hat on having the "number one show in the last decade" then I'm all for it. Just run two seasons of
American Idol every year, Monday through Friday and throw in
Hell's Kitchen and the various Gordon Ramsay spinoffs where he's yelling at people for burning the "f**king risotto" for good measure.
But if they aren't going to put any real, professional effort into the development, marketing and scheduling of scripted television, and building audiences for these shows then they need to stop wasting our time and give other networks (including cable networks...
Lone Star would have been a perfect fit on F/X) a chance to pick up these shows.
Here's a great article from Topless Robot that shows that it's not just genre.
Come on, that article cites Arrested Development as a show that was canceled too soon... It was on for THREE SEASONS. Where did this attitude come from that networks need to keep low rated shows on the schedule indefinitely?
So, let me get this straight: out of the twenty shows listed, the one you picked up on to dismiss the validity outright of the contentions of the Topless Robot piece was
Arrested Development???
If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't have listed
Arrested Development either because I just never thought it was as good of a show as it was made out to be. That being said,
Arrested Development is yet another example of poor scheduling decisions by FOX and the show was cut from 22 to 18 episodes in its second season and it was canceled a month into the third season. To add more insult to injury, the final four episodes were aired during a two hour block opposite the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies. Your take on these shows that were 'given a chance' is completety out of context with the histories associated with them. These failures don't happen in a bubble.
But thanks for the lively debate! It's fun!
-The 'Tastic
