Shows screwed by the network - a good thing?

[SlightlyEvil]

It occurred to me while discussing the upcoming Arrested Development film that the show managed to stay good throughout its entire run, something few shows can really claim. I then realized that a big part of the reason it ended in only three seasons was that it was being Screwed By The Network (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewedByTheNetwork) - Fox resolutely refused to capitalize on the show's critical acclaim and mountain of Emmys by advertising it. Putting two and two together, I figured that, if the show hadn't been screwed by the network, it might have gone on longer, and eventually the writers would have run out of ideas, and the show would collapse and go out, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

For another example, if it were still on the air Firefly would be starting its seventh season. Would it still be as good today as it was in the fourteen episodes we got? To help your answer, I'm going to cite precedent on the last time we let Whedon get past five seasons.

I'm not saying that Fox was doing the right thing by messing around with these shows. What I'm trying to say is that by killing these and other shows off, they prevented them from growing old and stale, and what we're left with was higher quality than most of what we see on TV. Your thoughts?

[Evil DM Mark3]

Well it has been noted that British shows with their usually shorter runs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BritishBrevity) (Doctor Who (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoctorWho) and Last of the Summer Wine (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LastOfTheSummerWine) nonwithstanding) tend to avoid shark jumping (My Hero (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyHero) nonwithstanding)

However to be screwed by the network is to be shot down in its prime. A show that has, say, 4 good seasons and 6 tolerable ones until total Narmfest USA (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Narm)should die at either the end of season 5 or 6 (We can't assume physic schedulers after all) but one screwed by the network tends to get shot mid season 2.

[Zeta Kai]

Good points, but also one should realize that this premise assumes that a high-quality show that has been screwed by the network is going to be replaced by another high-quality show. This is rarely the case, Fox notwithstanding.

[chiasaur11]

Besides, Joss Whedon ended Buffy after a couple of mediocre seasons of his own accord. Firefly would probably be cancelled before it went out n' out bad, and maybe would even keep up "best show on TV" quality for 4 or more years. The fact it might have had a few bad episodes at some point fails to excuse Fox here.

[Tengu_temp]

The perfect length for a show is 26-52 episodes, and most of them should aim to finish the story they want to tell in that time period if you ask me. A shorter run leaves you wanting for more, a longer run and things get stretched out or the creators run out of ideas.

I don't think if Firefly would go on for longer than that if they let Joss make more of it.

[draco567]

The perfect length for a show is 26-52 episodes, and most of them should aim to finish the story they want to tell in that time period if you ask me. A shorter run leaves you wanting for more, a longer run and things get stretched out or the creators run out of ideas.

I don't think if Firefly would go on for longer than that if they let Joss make more of it.

How many episodes is a standard US season? 23 I think.

I would have taken a few crummy seasons of AD, to have the chance at having more good than bad, then just have it die out.

Sometimes, shows get a second life after some poor writing, The Simpsons for example.

[Dervag]

If the price I had to pay for second and (inconceivable glory!) third and fourth seasons of Firefly was the mediocrity of fifth and sixth seasons of Firefly...

Let's just say that I wish I had problems like that.

I've never been fond of the idea that ''young death" is better, for TV shows or for individuals. Let them get all the way up to the moment of shark-jumping, and then we can talk about termination after they've jumped it.

[chiasaur11]

If the price I had to pay for second and (inconceivable glory!) third and fourth seasons of Firefly was the mediocrity of fifth and sixth seasons of Firefly...

Let's just say that I wish I had problems like that.

I've never been fond of the idea that ''young death" is better, for TV shows or for individuals. Let them get all the way up to the moment of shark-jumping, and then we can talk about termination after they've jumped it.

Nice going. You made me think of the glories of four seasons of the best show to grace our feeble televisions. Now I'll be miserable all day, thinking over what might have been.

[Dervag]

Look, I'm sorry, but if you weren't inspired to imagine that by the original post, I couldn't have expected you to be so inspired by my comments.

I wonder who would have to pay who how much money to get Second Season Firefly flying?

[chiasaur11]

Look, I'm sorry, but if you weren't inspired to imagine that by the original post, I couldn't have expected you to be so inspired by my comments.

I wonder who would have to pay who how much money to get Second Season Firefly flying?

Ideally made before the movie came out somehow. So, first we need a time machine...

[The Demented One]

Ideally made before the movie came out somehow. So, first we need a time machine...
You think the Doctor's a fan of Firefly?

[chiasaur11]

You think the Doctor's a fan of Firefly?

If not, we just find one who is.
I mean, it's one of the best shows to ever be on TV, and there've been ten of him. If none of them like it, I'd be shocked.

Of course, he'd probably find the no Aaiens thing fairly funny.

[snoopy13a]

I don't know if Arrested Development was "screwed" by the network. Fox tried to promote it as best they could and they let it survive for awhile due to it being critically acclaimed. If you have anyone to be angry with, blame the people who didn't watch it.

I do have a view on "jumping the shark". My belief is that the "jump the shark" moment is a symptom of the show going bad and not the cause. Basically, the producers have ratings and focus group information on their show so they know when it is starting to turn south. I think that the "jump the shark" moment is a gimmick to try and turn around a dying show instead of the gimmick that causes a healthy show to die.

[Mewtarthio]

For another example, if it were still on the air Firefly would be starting its seventh season. Would it still be as good today as it was in the fourteen episodes we got? To help your answer, I'm going to cite precedent on the last time we let Whedon get past five seasons.

I'm not saying that Fox was doing the right thing by messing around with these shows. What I'm trying to say is that by killing these and other shows off, they prevented them from growing old and stale, and what we're left with was higher quality than most of what we see on TV. Your thoughts?

What would you do if I told you that I could make you the best cake in the world for your birthday/wedding/anniversary, but with the caveat that I would then open a bakery that only sold mediocre cakes?

As a side note, I never understand that thing about Buffy only being good for five seasons. I always thought Season Four was the worst one.

[Joran]

If the price I had to pay for second and (inconceivable glory!) third and fourth seasons of Firefly was the mediocrity of fifth and sixth seasons of Firefly...

Let's just say that I wish I had problems like that.

I've never been fond of the idea that ''young death" is better, for TV shows or for individuals. Let them get all the way up to the moment of shark-jumping, and then we can talk about termination after they've jumped it.

Here, here. You summed up my thoughts exactly.

Also, many of the new serial shows leave off on a cliffhanger... and don't resolve the plot at all when canceled. This is extraordinarily annoying and leads to the Firefly Effect; basically, not watching something you'd normally watch because you're afraid of it getting canceled. And then, it leads into a feedback loop =P

Also, there's the opposite effect. Something that isn't quite good yet but shows glimmers of reaching there. Many a time, a series takes a few years to reach it's peak; an example would be both Star Trek: TNG and DS9.

[Jayngfet]

Honestly, they should at least go through all the planned episodes. Who else wanted to see more Tak?

[Rollin]

If not, we just find one who is.
I mean, it's one of the best shows to ever be on TV, and there've been ten of him. If none of them like it, I'd be shocked.

Of course, he'd probably find the no Aaiens thing fairly funny.

This raises the (in my mind) interesting side question: Which of the Doctors would be most likely to appreciate Firefly?

[TheEmerged]

/humor on
I'll only say this -- I learned the hard way to never bring up the "If your show was really that good, why weren't people watching it? It's not like you can't get the word out these days..." argument around Firefly fans. The doctor says I only need a few more surgeries until the burns won't be noticeable...
/humor off

[MeklorIlavator]

/humor on
I'll only say this -- I learned the hard way to never bring up the "If your sho
w was really that good, why weren't people watching it? It's not like you can't get the word out these days..." argument around Firefly fans. The doctor says I only need a few more surgeries until the burns won't be noticeable...
/humor off

Well, I don't think we actually can. I mean, one would need to get millions of viewers to impact a a networks decision, and unlike most things that one wants to spread the word about, a tv show doesn't command emotion. It doesn't have a terminal illness, it's not poor, and its not suffering from extreme amounts of violence, so you can't stir up emotions(except fanboys, but those aren't the people you need to convince). How exactly is one supposed to spread the word?

Edit: I realize that your speaking tongue in cheek, but I've always questioned that viewpoint.

[chiasaur11]

Also, in Firefly's case, you couldn't even say when to watch it.

It was screwed over from the first airing.

And sadly I don't know which Doctor would like Firefly best. Maybe we should just wait in Hill Valley for Doc Brown. As a backup plan.

[Lord of Rapture]

Please don't hate me for this, but this is my line of thought for Firefly.

1. Firefly is about space cowboys.
2. I don't like cowboys.
3. Therefore, I won't like Firefly.

Am I wrong? Please say yes...

[Evil DM Mark3]

Please don't hate me for this, but this is my line of thought for Firefly.

1. Firefly is about space cowboys.
2. I don't like cowboys.
3. Therefore, I won't like Firefly.

Am I wrong? Please say yes...

Your logic is flawed. Firefly is not about Space Cowboys. There are western tropes and plots, but it is deep, rich and detailed enough to be about PEOPLE. The Western elements are the flavour, not the meal.

You would probably like Firefly. I did.

[Tengu_temp]

The only prerequesite to liking Firefly is possessing a soul.

[Winterwind]

Regarding the original topic: I don't think a network cutting off a series prematurely can ever be a good thing. If the series is good and its writers competent, they will tell the story they have to tell and quit on their own then, after all that was to be said was said.
I offer Babylon 5 as example for a show which did just that and ended after five seasons because its story was done, and its successor Crusade, which was killed by the network before it had time to blossom (in spite of the writers having an extensive multiple season story to tell).

[Philistine]

The only prerequesite to liking Firefly is possessing a soul.

Temptation to sig that... rising...

It's a little amazing to me how much passion Firefly still stirs up in people. Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the show when it was on the air (and still enjoy occasionally busting out the DVDs over a weekend), and I'd describe myself as a fan. Some people get a bit... scary... about it, though.

Sidenote: apart from the scheduling issues, which were considerable, I saw a grand total of one ad for the show during its entire run on FOX. If FOX had given Firefly anything like the promotional support they lavished on Joe Millionaire (which - OMG! - didn't last too long itself, because it was complete and utter garbage), then it might have had a chance.

[Lord_Asmodeus]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Still, I think Invader Zim could have lasted longer without getting stale.

[Dervag]

You think the Doctor's a fan of Firefly?He'd almost have to be.


Please don't hate me for this, but this is my line of thought for Firefly.

1. Firefly is about space cowboys.
2. I don't like cowboys.
3. Therefore, I won't like Firefly.

Am I wrong? Please say yes...Yes, you are very likely to be wrong.

There's a definite Wild West feel to the dialogue* and to the environment on the impoverished backwater worlds where our cast spends most of their time. But it's not really about cowboys, specifically.

Put simply, your dislike of cowboys is not a big enough bar that you should automatically avoid this show. It would be much better to watch a little and then decide you don't like it. Start with "Serenity," the first episode. Maybe one or two more. If you don't like them because of the style, don't watch the rest.

[Hawriel]

Regarding the original topic: I don't think a network cutting off a series prematurely can ever be a good thing. If the series is good and its writers competent, they will tell the story they have to tell and quit on their own then, after all that was to be said was said.
I offer Babylon 5 as example for a show which did just that and ended after five seasons because its story was done, and its successor Crusade, which was killed by the network before it had time to blossom (in spite of the writers having an extensive multiple season story to tell).

Generaly yes. However sence the mid 90s Ive seen many good shows get the axe befor they could finish one season. Through no falt of there own, were killed. Here are afew. Two of them, big supprize, where on FOX.

Profit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(TV_series)
This was a very good show. My friends and I aways made sure we watched it. Good writing, interesting character, down write twisted personalities. On Fox again

Space Above and Beyond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_Above_and_Beyond

This was screwed by Fox from the begining. It was shown on sundays. Thats right fooball night, right after the X-files. Not only that it shared the same time slot as a very popular family drama Du South. So half the time it did not air or they swiched days so no one knew when it was on. According to the Wiki it had a five season run planned.

Studio 60 on the sunset strip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip

This was another Aeron Sorcen creation. It started the season after The West Wing was canceled. The writing was on par with the best seasons of the West Wing. It had a fenominal cast. Yet it was canceled. Every critic loved it, and it won afew awords.

Many truly craptastic shows get cut. Kindred comes to mind. However Its been an ever growing trend for studios and networks to kill a show if they dont have the popularity of Sienfeld by its 8th episode. Sienfeld didnt even have the popularty of "Sienfield" untill its 3rd season. Then again alot of craptastic shows seem to run on forever. Andromida, and well pick almost any sitcom. Your right about shows sticking within there planned running time. If the writers can keep a show going because they have new ideas or twists on old plots thats fine. I just don't think showes are givin that chance any more. Hell Im waiting to hear that Heros is going to be canned. Im truely suppized that its comming back after last season and the strike.

[Dervag]

I think part of the problem is that the timing of when a show is on has a lot to do with how many people watch it.

Obviously, network executives want to put popular shows in the best time slots, to draw the biggest audience. But if you put popular shows in the best time slots, they get a double helping of "popular." Which means that they'll have bigger audiences than other shows, even if those other shows are just as good and have the same potential to be popular.

Which, in turn, means that the shows in bad time slots get canceled simply because they aren't doing as well as the ones in good time slots.

And, to make matters worse, as Hawriel observes, shows get canceled before the actors and writers have time to get their feet under them. And before the audience has time to find out that the show even exists. A lot of people watch a good show not because it's on a network, but because they like to see it. But for that to happen, they have to know that the show is worth seeing or they won't tune in at the right time. If the show is canceled within its first season, that doesn't have time to happen.

In which case the problem is that new shows are being expected to compete with old shows that have a large advantage.
________________________

I'm still wondering how much money it would take to buy the TV show rights from Fox for Firefly. I mean, they clearly aren't planning on using the rights any time soon. I'd think a big enough bribe would do it. Does anyone have any information about the rough size we'd be talking about?

[Don Julio Anejo]

IMO shows are good as long as the writers can keep coming up with new ideas for something interesting every new episode. As soon as half a season is one giant story arc, it gets impossible to follow if you miss even a single episode.

Usually writers run out of stuff to write about after around 2 seasons.

[Hopeless]

This raises the (in my mind) interesting side question: Which of the Doctors would be most likely to appreciate Firefly?

Well the First would disagree with a lot of it,
the Second wouldn't agree with the guns,
Third would think he could do better and look better whilst doing it,
Fourth would like it albeit he'd still think he'd do a better job,
Fifth would think its too violent and would rather they find a way to help River so her brother would be his favourite character although he would be embarassed about the "Ambassador"
Sixth would argue alot anyway but would probably watch it out of interest about those blokes with the blue hands,
Seventh would make the Alliance wish it was somewhere else, anywhere else...
Eighth would probably like it, Jayne wouldn't though.
Ninth would have sorted out the Alliance then had a chat regarding Firefly itself,
Tenth would rewrite the script if only because he'd want alot more humour involved and he can't help interfere.
Anything I missed?
No hold on NONE of them would have liked the guns, they would all think they would do better and they would sympathise with the cast over the series cancellation since they had pretty much the same problem except they have a much larger fan base... thinking about that doesn't that also mean a new series is on the cards?
Oh right after the mess with a pilot on one of Warren Ellis's comic series thats extremely unlikely they're a little too spiteful for their own good.

[Cheesegear]

Well, here in Australia, I had that problem with Farscape. I thought that show was brilliant (and still do), but, one of the problems it had was that for starters; It was on a poor network that nobody really watches. So, if nobody's watching the channel, nobody's seeing the ads. There's a lot of shows on this particular network that get canceled if only because they're on that network. They get picked up by a different network, and become ratings-grabbers.

Anyways, then Farscape ended up get shuffled around to stupid time slots, and, I think at one point, it was shown at 2am and no other time. We still haven't seen the fourth series on Australian TV (though we can get the DVDs...Strange that). Not to mention that Farscape was contracted for five seasons, but {I can't remember the name of the studio} withdrew funding, effectively canceling it. Even though Season 4 finished on a cliffhanger...Grr...
At least we got the miniseries.

But, then Ben Browder and Claudia Black got shipped to Stargate, which made me start watching that show again (I stopped somewhere after Jack retired...Stargate without MacGuyver wasn't the same). It's a wonder that show made it to what, ten seasons? Plus Atlantis (which is awesome)?

In Australia, Psych was only shown for four episodes. It wasn't the best show (but it did make me laugh a few times), but, it was still much better than half the stuff that was on-air at the time. Wikipedia tells me that this show (in America, at least) has won quite a few awards. I'm still left wondering why it's not on Australian TV.

There's another show (Moonlight, I think) that showed promise. I don't know why that got canceled.

Line of Fire was also an awesome, awesome show that got canceled. Wikipedia doesn't tell me why. If you don't know about this show, I suggest you give it a look - if you can find it.

And, as always...Brimstone :smallfrown:

[Irenaeus]

I don't know if Arrested Development was "screwed" by the network. Fox tried to promote it as best they could and they let it survive for awhile due to it being critically acclaimed. If you have anyone to be angry with, blame the people who didn't watch it.Dr. Tobias Fünke seems to disagree (may contain strong language):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeFV5GprfaQ


Your logic is flawed. Firefly is not about Space Cowboys. There are western tropes and plots, but it is deep, rich and detailed enough to be about PEOPLE. The Western elements are the flavour, not the meal.I, myself, enjoyed the flavour tremendously, but found the meal itself to be somewhat lacking in nutrition.

Meaning, it's ok to watch it for the cowboys, for those who has that preference.

[snoopy13a]

Sidenote: apart from the scheduling issues, which were considerable, I saw a grand total of one ad for the show during its entire run on FOX. If FOX had given Firefly anything like the promotional support they lavished on Joe Millionaire (which - OMG! - didn't last too long itself, because it was complete and utter garbage), then it might have had a chance.

Joe Millionaire was very successful. I remember we used to talk about it at work all the time. However, it was a one-trick pony and when they tried another season, it didn't work out too well.

Firefly was a great show but not that many people watched it. Thus, it was cancelled. Now, Fox deserves some blame for this due to the awful time slot but again, the reason it was cancelled was because of low ratings. Perhaps if Fox put it on Tuesday or Wednesday nights then it may have worked.

[chiasaur11]

Joe Millionaire was very successful. I remember we used to talk about it at work all the time. However, it was a one-trick pony and when they tried another season, it didn't work out too well.

Firefly was a great show but not that many people watched it. Thus, it was cancelled. Now, Fox deserves some blame for this due to the awful time slot but again, the reason it was cancelled was because of low ratings. Perhaps if Fox put it on Tuesday or Wednesday nights then it may have worked.

Awful time slot, very little promotion, random air dates and order, not showing all the episodes...

Frankly, I doubt ANY show could have survived that level of screwed by the network.

[Pocketa]

I miss Firefly, Invader Zim, Futurama...

[chiasaur11]

I miss Firefly, Invader Zim, Futurama...

Futurama is coming back, slow but steady.
So, there's that.

[Dervag]

Firefly was a great show but not that many people watched it. Thus, it was cancelled. Now, Fox deserves some blame for this due to the awful time slot but again, the reason it was cancelled was because of low ratings. Perhaps if Fox put it on Tuesday or Wednesday nights then it may have worked.Thing is, they ought to index the ratings a show needs against the quality of its time slot. New shows at bad time slots shouldn't be expected to draw ratings that can compete with popular shows in the ideal prime time slots. They can't; it's impossible. If Fox insists on cancelling every show that gets bad ratings, they will never ever keep one unless they take a huge gamble and use it to replace one of their existing good earners in a good time slot.

Likewise when half the episodes have been rescheduled to make time for football games- same problem. A show that doesn't have a consistent air time when its potential audience can watch it will have bad ratings regardless of its quality or ability to draw the attention of that audience. Unless it's been around long enough to build up a dedicated fanbase (which Firefly hadn't by the time they decided to cancel), that's inevitable.

P.S. I'm still wondering if anyone knows a bit about the kind of price tag Fox's rights to Firefly would carry.

[Swordguy]

P.S. I'm still wondering if anyone knows a bit about the kind of price tag Fox's rights to Firefly would carry.

A good estimate would be the production value of a full season (the industry standard). Firefly, IIRC, was in the 1.1 million-per-episode region. So you're talking in the 15-million region to buy the rights outright. At a minimum. The fact that the movie did make money raises the value of those rights specifically, as does the fact that the property is proven to be popular for a show of its genre via DVD sales. My WAG is that it would take a 20-million cash outlay to buy the rights outright from FOX, reimbursing them for the loss of potential profit.

(We looked at buying the rights to Robotech flat-out and transferring them to Catalyst Game Labs so they could use the old [good] artwork - and they used roughly this formula.)

Now licensing the rights away from FOX would be a lot more reasonable, as they'd assume almost none of the costs (taxes and transfer fees) and still make a little money - but it's a fairly common business choice to refuse licensing for "potentially popular" properties as it costs nothing for a company to sit on a license indefinitely and no competitors are making money. The thought is that of hedging against future competition is better for the company than making a little money right then but potentially losing out on large profits later on.

Also, having the rights to a "potentially popular" property increases the perceived value of company stock (since they have potential to make more money in the future), which leads to actual higher stock values. And since that's the sole purpose of a company (to increase profits/stock value), they've got even more reason not to let "potentially popular" properties go.

Finally, remember that 20-million estimate? That's just for the rights. A company would have to make all that back during the run of the show to break even before production costs are taken into account. That's why we don't see rights transferred around very often, except in the case of very dead shows. Had Firefly not had good DVD sales or a movie, and was 5 years out of production, the rights could probably have been had for a couple million, tops.