TVSquad

I don't understand the arguement here, maybe I'm just dense. Aren't most cancellations the fault of the network. Numbers only appear to have any meaning because some shows get chances other shows do not despite ratings. Your post nor observer-reporter's post make any sense as far "who's fault" is concerned.

I do agree though with the notion of following the British model for some shows. Not only are shows able to be concluded there ends up being a lot less filler episodes of shows. I guess that is kind of what they are doing with Lost.

Reply

There is no solution to this problem in the current market. The only way to deal with it is pay-per-view or subscription programming. As long as the networks are solely dependent on the Nielsen ratings, they have to do everything in their power to make those people hooked up to the rating-machines tune in. They work just like a grocery-story. They offer you a certain variety of goods and if a product does not sell you leave it there until the shelf-space is simply too valueable to waste it with something that simply does not sell.

This has happened to me more than once in the recent years. My closest supermarket never carried "Rice Crispies" - they did for TWO weeks back on 2005 - I bought all boxes and thought "Man now they will get more of that because I bought all of it so fast". Nope - didn't happen. I still have to drive to a whole other part of my city to get my cereal. And that's just what happens on TV.

For you, the viewer, the only way to get around this problem is changing the way you watch shows.

I myself did not watch "24" for four whole seasons and then got the DVDs. It was AWEsome. Of course then I got hooked and watched season five as it came out and was kind of angry about the plot - but still it was good. This year I was totally angry and hated it.

The best idea would be to wait until a show has been put on DVD, buy the set, and enjoy it in one sitting over the weekend - or a couple of evenings. That's really the best way to do it.

Another good bet is getting pay-tv. "Dirt" and "The Riches" got renewed - and you and I know that that would not have happened on any of the major networks.

Even in britain shows get cancelled - not that often, but it happens when viewership is almost zero.

Every time you tune in to one of the big five networks you are subjecting yourself to the taste of the ordinary masses. You cannot really be expecting to see more than one season of Firefly when the huge mass of viewers likes American Idol and a gazillion of reality TV shows.

I don't read the New York Post or the National Enquirer either. Still they sell a hell of a lot of magazines each month.

So again - the only way you can expect to get quality products is if you shell out additonal money.

Problem is - with shows like "Lost" on TV you get the feeling that TV could be so much better. You get teased. You start dreaming. And then stuff like Sanjaya happens :-)

Reply

Really? It's CBS's fault? I thought it was NBC's fault that BCS didn't pick the show up.

It was a very badly writen article Paul. CBS was in a no win spot. If they showed 2 new episodes than two repeats fans would get mad. If they showed all 20 episodes in a row they would need another show. CBS screwed up, but the show had the same problem as Invasion, started REALLY slow and picked up a lot of steam. But after you lose the veiwer you aren't getting them back.

Reply

"The best idea would be to wait until a show has been put on DVD, buy the set, and enjoy it in one sitting over the weekend - or a couple of evenings. That's really the best way to do it." - Bash

If everyone did that then no shows would last long enough to get enough episodes to make a dvd, everything would be pulled after 2 episodes of ZERO viewers...

Reply

This is how I think TV should be done...

52 weeks in a year, right? Each year has two seasons, a spring/summer season and a fall/winter season. You do 22 episodes of a show each year. Then split your shows between the two. Figure out which show goes into which season, and then you have 22episodes to show over 26 weeks, so you don't have to deal with long hiatus's (which is what killed Jericho), unless you put all four weeks in a row.

Then, if Monday nights show in the summer season fails miserably and gets cancelled, you can fill the slot with something successful from the past winter season, or maybe something that didn't quite find it's audience and you'd like new people to see it.

Oh, and stick with shows for longer that a few weeks. That helps too.

Reply

CBS screwed up - that's clear. It's also their fault it's cancelled (as someone else pointed out, that's also a clear 'duh' comment) - they're the only ones who can make that decision.

They could also make the decision to keep it, acknowledging that they screwed up by giving the show such a long break and assuming that people would come back for it and not forget it exists.

Not every show can survive breaks like that - even "Lost" suffered as the result of a long break *and* a time slot move.

Now they could have taken a short break, rerun a couple of foundation episodes, and then started up again it wouldn't have been so bad.

Networks breaking seasons up into 13 episode chunks isn't the way to go though - not unless they can build those chunks as complete seasons (or 'series' as the Brits call them) with a beginning and ending. Another idea is to cycle shows like they used to do in the 70s/80s - pick a time slot, pick 3 good solid shows that are either related to each other or are in the same genre, and run one one week, another the next week, and the last one the last week (or run them in month long chunks/two week chunks, crossover characters). Yes, it would mean more shows that they would have to have to fill the time, but it may also mean a dedicated fan base at a certain time slot in the week for the entire year because you could have first run episodes all year long.

Reply

I like the way Doctor Who is done. 13 episodes a year, those 13 episodes tell a complete story. The next year the show comes back with it's Christmas Special and kind of serves as a new pilot for the show. Each season is one story and each one ends nicely so if the show is canceled no biggy. if not they tell a new story next season. hero's tried that in a way and failed.

Reply

I'm all for the British model, and I think Jericho was a prime example of that. How long could it REALLY have gone on? There's a limit to how much you could do with that story line (and yes, I watched and liked the show). I think a run of 22 episodes was enough to tell the story, and give closure, at least in Jericho's case. But here we go again... we may never have an 'end'.

Reply

People, People - the networks do not care if you personally are watching the show - they only care if "Neilson" families are tuned to a program and are watching the advertisements. If you are not a Neilson family - feel free to not get attached to shows prematurely, watch them when you want, download!!!! - you are not affecting the outcome of your beloved show!!

Reply

Cable already a fair job of what you refer to as the British model of running a show for a slated number of episodes regardless of the ratings. As fair as I know, FX has shown the full run of the shows it has ordered the past few years, including "Dirt," and "The Riches" this season.

I hope NBC's omission of any midseason dramas (and only one comedy) at the upfront announcement indicates a commitment to give the fall lineup more of a chance than in the past couple of years.

Maybe it's asking too much of writers and producers, but I wish more shows were written to run 7 or 15 episodes with a Plan A to wrap it up, a Plan be to extend it to a full order and a Plan C to continue it for future seasons.

I really enjoyed the first season of "Prison Break" until it got to the point where the producers had originally intended the actual breakout to occur and then added a bunch of filler episodes. Boo! That's where I quit watching. After that and the whole "Reunion" fiasco, I have been tepid about starting new serials. I even gave the one of Fox with Gale Harold and Rebecca Gayhart a chance last year and got the carpet yanked out from under me AGAIN.

Reply

After getting into a few new serials this year only to have them yanked, the lesson I learned is to never watch the first season of a serial. If, on the odd chance, the show survives then you can netflix that first season. I'm sure many have come to the same conclusion. This could create a negative feedback loop where it becomes impossible to launch a new serial. Oh well.

Networks: fool me once, shame on you. I won't be fooled again. (at least I hope not)

Reply

Of course it was CBS's fault that "Jericho" was cancelled but not for the reason that people think. Most shows get cancelled because not enough people are watching them (duh) but in most cases people aren't watching them because they aren't very good shows or because there's something people would prefer to watch at that time. "Jericho" was doing well against it's competition in the time slot. It was, if not a hit, competitive until it got hit with the long hiatus because unlike most CBS series it was determined to be a "show that doesn't repeat well." People weren't willing to wait through the long hiatus for any show - both "Lost" and "Heroes" dipped in the ratings during their hiatuses. The difference was that those shows had sizable audiences and could afford to lose viewers without being in danger (their network's crappy lineups otherwise didn't hurt either). "Jericho" couldn't.

So what's "the answer?" Short term - and it's probably the direction the networks will be going in for a while - it's to make episodic shows that aren't continuity heavy and that do well when they repeat, like just about every procedural out there. In the long term I think the model for some shows has to change and there are two ways to go. FOX has shown one way, by running "24" in a continuous 24 episode run starting in January. That is, in essence, the British model. The other model is the one that NBC is adopting with "Heroes," with the show doing 24 episodes within the main continuity and six episodes - "Heroes: Origins" - within the same universe but with totally different casts, and presumably a totally different creative contingent.

There is a problem with embracing the British model whole heartedly. It will probably work for established shows, but what about new shows. Would "Vanished" or "Kidnapped" have drawn an audience if it had started in September and had a set ending point in December or January? I don't know.

Reply

Paul,
I agree with your article. I wish the cancelled shows would at least play out with an ending Its very frustrating otherwise. The British Model every one keeps referring to isnt based on a TV season like in the United states Ie September to May. They make a show of 6-8 Episodes or 13 with DR Who( and thats because its been a success) and show it, sometimes in the fall or spring or whenever scheduling allows. Its much more free form and not as structured. IMHO Networks should stop competing for ratings and put on the best programing to suit the viewer. They spend a fortune on developing Pilots and have test screenings! No one once to see a filler episode.
why not show two shows of 12 episodes each? or 3 of 8?this would improve the quality. Fawlty towers, considered by most Brits ads the best comedy series of all time had two " Seasons" and 12 episodes in total.

Reply

It was CBS's fault.

The idea of a Fall finale was dicey, with some shows you can do that, cause they have die hard fan bases or there is no on going story to interrupt, but that wasn't the case for Jericho.

It was a new show, with a new idea, everything about it made it different from the other shows.

CBS completely dropped the ball on this one, no only did they take a chance on a fall finale, they didn't do enough to get Jericho out there. I watch Heroes too, and they was not a day that went by that i didn't seem a promo for the show, the 6'o clock news didn't go off until at least three promos where shown.

And let's be honest it's not like they were up against blockbuster show on another channel, they're biggest competition was Bones on Fox and Law & Order reruns on TNT.

I didn't think they was anything wrong with the writing, i know some other viewers and columnist felt that Jericho was dragging the secrets out too long, but i didn't think so. After all it a 20+ episodes season,and they're were trying to get renewed for another year, not a mini-series it would have made no sense to cram all the secrets into the first weeks.

In my opinion CBS just should have done a better job, and not just for Jericho, i don't think they do enough to showcase they're other shows either. It was the final season for the King of Queens, but i didn't see any commercials for it until a month before they brought it back, and i think the same can said for a lot of their other shows.

I think CBS gave up on Jericho early, and just decided to let it go, which is a shame because it was a great show.

Reply

If CBS won't bring it back, maybe TNT or USA will pick it up. At least, that's what I'm hoping

Reply

I think, compared to "Lost", there were simply too few secrets to reveal and that there was too much (ridiculous!) filler.

I mean come ON. They used BBQs and love stories to fill the airtime. That was simply too idiotic for me to keep watching. On top of that the sets simply looked too damn cheap and nothing like a real town. Just as good as the street scenes of "Seinfeld". And that was just unacceptable for a show that was supposed to deal with a WWIII scenario. If you aim high you simply cannot shoot with a slingshot.

Reply

I agree that the networks need to start commiting to one show from beginning to end. I watch alot Italian TV and they do miniseries, these shows are excellent because they run anywhere from 4 to 12 episodes, they have a beginning a middle and an end and no one is upset or dissapointed when it ends because it is expected.

Reply

I'm going to agree with most of you and say that it definitely was CBS's fault that Jericho was cancelled. As has been noted, it wasn't promo'ed nearly enough (admittedly having the ratings abortion of Katie Couric for your evening news lead into prime time didn't help), and that stupid 3 month break was an absurd thing to do. Jericho was holding its own and actually starting to pick up solid viewership and build buzz. Then the hiatus. Even shows that either had an established viewership (Lost) or had huge buzz (Heroes) lost ground after their respective breaks. But a show that is starting to gain a footing is not likely to survive a significant break in the middle of things.

That being said, the trend seems to be towards the networks ordering smaller blocks of episodes. The Upfront summaries that TV Squad did last week seemed to confirm that several networks only purchased 13 episode blocks of some shows, as opposed to the 18 to 20 that may have happened in years past. As such, why not go to shorter, continuous seasons. Start a show like Jericho in mid-September. Maybe you miss a week for the Thanksgiving specials, and then miss a week for Christmas. Throw in one or two more weeks for a special sporting event (NFL, NCAA bowl game, World Series, whatever), but with those exceptions show the episodes continuously. Then, in mid-January, after your 13 episodes have shown over the past 16 or so weeks, you start up your spring season. Repeat the pattern, with a week off for MLK Jr./President's Day, a week off for Easter specials, a week specifically for sweeps (or whatever), and you wind up that season around the beginning of May. That takes you into summer specials, baseball, out-of-school-youth oriented shows (Real World, Spring Break, OC-type shows, whatever), and ride that with reruns through to the fall. It beats the hell out of running a show for 8 weeks, taking a 3 month break to try out another half season of a different new show, and then trying to restart the first show after all the viewers left to find something else to watch.

Rant over. TYVM for your time.

Reply

Let me just say one thing. It's silly to try to figure out a way to explain the show's failure. Same thing to explain why Arrested Development never caught on. It s the way it is... and if there was a reason why viewers are going to stick to a show, we wouldn't have flops every years.
The truth is that a serialized show is a risk for any network. To make it work, they would have to commit for a decided amount of season from the beginning (BABYLON 5), or decide later about 3 more seasons for a show once it's an established hit (LOST). But how many are going to take the huge financial risk ? For every Lord of the Ring Trilogy (filmed at once), there is 200 Matrix (2 and 3) (no offense but urgh !). It's a huge gamble for networks. the kind of gamble they won't take.
Now, your British idea is already applied to 24. Heavily serialized show that works by seasons with very limited cliffhangers at the end (if none at all). Anyone can come at season 7 and go on with it even if they missed the previous 6 seasons. But for a show like LOST or JERICHO, you can't decently expect a resolution in just one season. Do you know how long it took me to get used to BEN from LOST ? And he s now a fine character i couldn't live without. Any satisfying ending for JERICHO would be hurried and not satisfying so early.
The real thing here is the mid season break. It didn t work well with ALIAS at the time, it doesn't work well with LOST (ok combined with 10 pm for a popular show, come on ABC) and it still didn t work with JERICHO.
This is what needs to be changed. I d rather wait a year to get a new season (sopranos style) rather than watch it then wait 5 months for the rest of it. Either that, or increase the number of episode to last without reruns.
After all... those horrible daylight soaps are the perfect example of serialized show that works...

Reply

I'll admit it now. I canceled the show, not CBS. Plus send me nuts, I like almonds.

Reply