• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Unfairly Cancelled Shows.

Regarding Firefly - from what I understand, Fox decided at the last minute to show a radically different, more action orientated pilot (i.e. The Train Job), and ending not showing the pilot as it was intended until later on.

For a series that had some form of continuity running through it, this just defies logic. Imagine if they'd done this with Lost or Heroes. "Why are they all living on an isl... OH WAIT, yes, their plane crashed in the 9th episode" :rolleyes:

I've never really understood this fascination US networks have with tinkering with shows and cancelling them after 13 episodes - very rarely do you get a show that is an instant success straight from the pilot. A lot of shows need to build interest, build a fanbase, and it seems to be more common now that if they're not getting 18 million viewers on the pilot, the show just isn't worth continuing. It's madness. MADNESS!

They only seem to take into account first-run viewing figures as well, which I've heard it said that things like Tivo are having an adverse impact on it. And while it's being shown in one part of the country, it's been pre-empted for sports in another. That surely doesn't give a true representation? MADNESS!
 
I was disappointed by the cancellation of Angel, particularly because of the way that they had to rush through the end of S5 and leave the storyline on a HUGE cliffhanger that we are ever going to likely see resolved onscreen- although, in fairness, without killing off Angel, I'm not really sure how Joss or anybody could've ever figured out a good way to end that show that would've satisfied everybody although it probably could've lasted another season or at least maybe a short miniseries "wrap up" (a la Farscape). I mean, you just don't end the story with Angel et. al facing a huge demon army (including a DRAGON)!!!!
 
Lindley said:
Temis the Vorta said:
And that being the real-world way to assess "fair" vs. "unfair," I can't think of a single example of a show that was obviously getting good enough ratings to survive but was axed regardless.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe Angel qualifies. Word is that WB wanted to try another vampire show and decided to pull the plug on the one that had just aired its 100th episode, despite decent (but not outstanding) numbers. Of course, I don't think this other show ever got off the ground......
Click to expand...

Showtime and HBO do it sometimes. Deadwood and Rome were well rated shows that were cancelled due to escalating production costs.
 
butlerd said:
I was disappointed by the cancellation of Angel, particularly because of the way that they had to rush through the end of S5 and leave the storyline on a HUGE cliffhanger that we are ever going to likely see resolved onscreen- although, in fairness, without killing off Angel, I'm not really sure how Joss or anybody could've ever figured out a good way to end that show that would've satisfied everybody although it probably could've lasted another season or at least maybe a short miniseries "wrap up" (a la Farscape). I mean, you just don't end the story with Angel et. al facing a huge demon army (including a DRAGON)!!!!
Click to expand...

They had more than enough time to write a different ending if they wanted to. That was the intended end: that they'll continue the fight even in the face of overwhelming odds and a chance of survival approaching zero.
 
Off the top of my head, here is a checklist of improvements the big four American networks could adopt, to get rid of much of the rope they're currently hanging themselves with:

* Fire most of the current executives and quash most of their pensions. Hire new executives who have solid backgrounds in writing and TV/movie producing.

* Appeal more to stable NUMBERS instead of too narrowly focused demographs to support shows and advertising revanue, since the current demograph strategy doesn't make that much sense anyway (older people are more financially secure and have more free time).

* Learn to realise that constantly pre-empting a show or randomly moving it around the week would be detrimental to keeping and gaining viewers.

* Have internal review boards representing the sponsors, consumers/viewers, production companies, and shareholders. Vinditive, money hungry fuck ups like Leslie Moonves and that narrow minded cunt who helped can S:AaB wouldn't last a month.

* Each network should have their version of I-Player to counterattack the torrenting and downloading on YouTube. Wear the Internet pirating or the Internet piracy wears you.

* The TV networks and production companies should form a united lobby to force pressure upon the music companies in regards to music content being illogically hamstrung by obsolete contracts flying in the face of digital technology and Fair Use, plus it will free up or restore a huge back catalogue of TV shows with music content.
 
The only shows I think get "unfairly" cancelled are shows that only get two or three episodes. I think they should at least wait to see if an audience can develop. Shows like "Drive" and "Wonderfalls" got three episodes, and in the case of Drive, it had two episodes air back to back. It didn't seem like they promoted either series enough or gave it a chance to succeed.

I think "Profit" also qualifies, as they only aired four of the eight episodes. Fox received many complaints from affiliates who wouldn't air it, or claimed to have received complaints from viewers over having a series where the central character is inherently evil. I think it really was ahead of it's time. I rented it on Netflix and really enjoyed it. Yes, it's a little dated already, but it really was a fun show to watch. Jim Profit is probably the most complex and wonderfully evil character to ever be on TV, and is definitely the precursor to "Dexter."
 
Hate to darken your day....

TedShatner10 said:
Off the top of my head, here is a checklist of improvements the big four American networks could adopt, to get rid of much of the rope they're currently hanging themselves with:

Fire most of the current executives and quash most of their pensions. Hire new executives who have solid backgrounds in writing and TV/movie producing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what getting rid of their pensions has to do with anything, but who's to say plenty of TV executives don't have backgrounds in production? Here's a tip for you: TV is a business, most writers wouldn't know a spreadsheet from a file folder. Shows need to make money to be on the air, even brilliantly written shows can fail despite the best efforts of the network. Look at Arrested Development for example.

Appeal more to stable NUMBERS instead of too narrowly focused demographs to support shows and advertising revanue, since the current demograph strategy doesn't make that much sense anyway (older people are more financially secure and have more free time).
Click to expand...

Younger people spend way more money than older people on "non-essentials", which is the majority of advertising revenue. Why would the producers of Heroes target the 48-60 demographic? Shows cost X $$$ to produce, and they need X $$$ to stay on the air. They don't ignore the 50 year olds watching Heroes, but when they sell advertising space they need raw numbers to base their rates on. Company X isn't going to pay $100,000 for a 30 second spot unless they know they're going to get their target audience.

Learn to realise that constantly pre-empting a show or randomly moving it around the week would be detrimental to keeping and gaining viewers.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Have internal review boards representing the sponsors, consumers/viewers, production companies, and shareholders. Vinditive, money hungry fuck ups like Leslie Moonves and that narrow minded cunt who helped can S:AaB wouldn't last a month.
Click to expand...

You really think a panel of lobbyist/bureaucrats is going to help the situation? All of these people are already represented in the offices of the big networks, and I'm not sure why you think they aren't the ones responsible for plenty of shows disappearing. Sponsors especially. And shareholders just want to make money, just like your "pal" Moonves.

Each network should have their version of I-Player to counterattack the torrenting and downloading on YouTube. Wear the Internet pirating or the Internet piracy wears you.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and for the most part they are all working on that.

The TV networks and production companies should form a united lobby to force pressure upon the music companies in regards to music content being illogically hamstrung by obsolete contracts flying in the face of digital technology and Fair Use, plus it will free up or restore a huge back catalogue of TV shows with music content.
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but all of these TV and production companies are already part and parcel with the conglomerations who own the music companies. While I agree that it's a PITA that some shows aren't getting distributed on DVD due to copyright issues involving music owned by their rivals, companies aren't going to lobby other companies to do something they themselves aren't willing to do. Do I wish they'd all just smile and get along and realize it's 2008 and not 1988? Absolutely, but your solution isn't much of one. And I don't know how "fair use" applies to a 20 year old song played in it's entirety on a TV show that originally paid for the right to use that music for the original broadcast, and then again for syndication. And it's not usually that companies don't want to lend their music again to DVD sales, it's that they want too much money.
 
Lindley said:
Temis the Vorta said:
And that being the real-world way to assess "fair" vs. "unfair," I can't think of a single example of a show that was obviously getting good enough ratings to survive but was axed regardless.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe Angel qualifies. Word is that WB wanted to try another vampire show and decided to pull the plug on the one that had just aired its 100th episode, despite decent (but not outstanding) numbers. Of course, I don't think this other show ever got off the ground......
Click to expand...

Wasn't Angel something like the second highest rated show on the WB in the second half of season five? I remember seeing a massive ratings boost in the ratings for Angel after news of the cancellation got out, but it was so long ago it's hard to remember.
 
TG Theodore said:
MeanJoePhaser said:
Just another thread to complain about FIREFLY getting canned.

I heard that The Beverly Hillbillies was still getting good ratings when it was canned by CBS, because the network wanted to dump rural themed shows
Click to expand...

It was canned because a VP's wife liked Gunsmoke and the only way to make room for it on the fall schedule was to kill two sitcoms.

--Ted
Click to expand...

I don't know the source for that. But noneconomic motives do play an occasional roles, even petty, personal ones.
 
Has anyone mentioned Star Trek? I'm rather ashamed of myself for not thinking of it before now.
 
Firefly was awesome but it deserved to be cancelled on account of the fact that nobody was watching it. Much as I'd like to lament the network's short-sightedness for axing such a cool show, they aren't running a charity.

Although Boston Legal hasn't been cancelled per se (as far as I know) it's definitely ending to stave off a probable cancellation. That's kinda lame, IMO. Its numbers aren't horrible and it's balls-deep in awards. Every network needs one critically acclaimed lost cause kicking around.
 
I'm not sure the cancellation of Firefly was unfair, but the way they showed the series was. And that certainly contributed to the viewership. You need to air in the intended order and you need to not pre-empt for baseball. Can't let the audience forget. Then they don't come back.
 
rafterman1701 said:
I'm not sure the cancellation of Firefly was unfair, but the way they showed the series was. And that certainly contributed to the viewership. You need to air in the intended order and you need to not pre-empt for baseball. Can't let the audience forget. Then they don't come back.
Click to expand...

Without turning this into a Firefly debate, I have to say I disagree. I saw some of FF first-run and I thought it was dumb. It wasn't 'till a friend (who was, incidentally, not a FF fan) dragged me to Serenity that I saw the light.

I'm a sci-fi fan. I'm predisposed to like this stuff and I shrugged it off. Proper promotion and airing order be damned, this show wasn't destined to make it, IMO.
 
DeafPoet said:
rafterman1701 said:
I'm not sure the cancellation of Firefly was unfair, but the way they showed the series was. And that certainly contributed to the viewership. You need to air in the intended order and you need to not pre-empt for baseball. Can't let the audience forget. Then they don't come back.
Click to expand...

Without turning this into a Firefly debate, I have to say I disagree. I saw some of FF first-run and I thought it was dumb. It wasn't 'till a friend (who was, incidentally, not a FF fan) dragged me to Serenity that I saw the light.

I'm a sci-fi fan. I'm predisposed to like this stuff and I shrugged it off. Proper promotion and airing order be damned, this show wasn't destined to make it, IMO.
Click to expand...

People also make too much of a big deal about the order in which they aired the pilot. It would make sense if the order caused confusion about what was going on in the series or with character introductions and plot setup, but it really didn't. If no one had ever told the public they didn't air in the "correct" order, no one would have noticed.

I'm sure someone will disagree with me, but they're doing so in hindsight and probably with a chip on the shoulder of their brown coat.
 
Cancellation isn't about being fair or unfair it's about networks killing shows that do bad in the ratings. Sometimes shows just don't catch on.
 
FordSVT said:
I'm not sure what getting rid of their pensions has to do with anything, but who's to say plenty of TV executives don't have backgrounds in production? Here's a tip for you: TV is a business, most writers wouldn't know a spreadsheet from a file folder. Shows need to make money to be on the air, even brilliantly written shows can fail despite the best efforts of the network. Look at Arrested Development for example.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of pensions is a bit too extreme, but we need to get people who'll do their fucking job, know what they're doing, and are in touch with the show producers and writers on some level, not creaming off tens of millions from the company for a job ill done. A show does not catch on, does not catch on, that's firm but fair. But shows like Shark were moved about then cancelled for no reason.

Younger people spend way more money than older people on "non-essentials", which is the majority of advertising revenue. Why would the producers of Heroes target the 48-60 demographic? Shows cost X $$$ to produce, and they need X $$$ to stay on the air. They don't ignore the 50 year olds watching Heroes, but when they sell advertising space they need raw numbers to base their rates on. Company X isn't going to pay $100,000 for a 30 second spot unless they know they're going to get their target audience.
Click to expand...

Get the right companies and products for the right times on who'll be watching (like holidays and viagra in the daytime), it's not rocket science. The Nielsen system is out of touch of reality and needs to be drastically overhauled. For a start take into account DVR, let alone VCR.

You really think a panel of lobbyist/bureaucrats is going to help the situation? All of these people are already represented in the offices of the big networks, and I'm not sure why you think they aren't the ones responsible for plenty of shows disappearing. Sponsors especially. And shareholders just want to make money, just like your "pal" Moonves.
Click to expand...

Networks are not a charity, but we need a balanced, reliable system of consent to stop the inept wastage of talent and entertainment. It won't solve everything but it's better than nothing. Shareholders want to make money, but not when a useless CEO like Moonves is hoovering much of it up.

I hate to break this to you, but all of these TV and production companies are already part and parcel with the conglomerations who own the music companies. While I agree that it's a PITA that some shows aren't getting distributed on DVD due to copyright issues involving music owned by their rivals, companies aren't going to lobby other companies to do something they themselves aren't willing to do. Do I wish they'd all just smile and get along and realize it's 2008 and not 1988? Absolutely, but your solution isn't much of one. And I don't know how "fair use" applies to a 20 year old song played in it's entirety on a TV show that originally paid for the right to use that music for the original broadcast, and then again for syndication. And it's not usually that companies don't want to lend their music again to DVD sales, it's that they want too much money.
Click to expand...

The current system is not working and extremely moribund. Nobody likes childish squabblers and greedy horders, when they've objectively got an easy way out, so these idiots need to work together in turning their wooden huts into sturdy boats before the mighty digital Tsunami sweeps the old order away completely. The consumer wants, the consumer gets, no matter the source. The person who solves this has to be ruthless and have deep pockets to keep all the parties happy. If the music holders felt they've been trodden on, tough shit, they had it coming for a long time. Lobbies are usually a united front for competing brands anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top