When NBC picked up the web-only show quarterlife to show on the network as writers' strike filler, many were wondering whether this internet-to-network transition might be the wave of the future. Well, it still may be, but according to the show's co-creator, Marshall Herskovitz, that wave shouldn't have started with quarterlife.According to The Hollywood Reporter, Herskovitz told an audience at Harvard Business School that after watching quarterlife on the big screen, he realized that the show about twentysomething angst should have never aired on NBC. In fact, within three minutes, he knew that the tight shots and intimate stories he and his partner Ed Zwick used were inappropriate for a broadcast network show; it might have worked better on cable, he thought, but not on NBC.
The ratings bear out his observations; the hour only attracted 3.1 million viewers on Tuesday night, which THR claims is NBC's worst performance at 10 PM since at least 1991. Wow. The article states that the show will likely be yanked from the network before the second episode airs, but may show up again on one of NBC's cable networks.
[via Mediabistro]
Seven greatest hand cannons in TV history
TV Squad previews NBC's new shows (part 1)
TV 101: How ESPN controls the world and what the other networks can learn from it
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-28-2008 @ 11:34AM
Chip Douglas said...
Well, I think that just about covers webisodes on network TV. I have always been a big fan of Herskovitz and Zwick's telivision shows and feature films. But this story was neither original or creative. I too was bored after the first three minutes. I did not buy a minute of it. I know there is a great future in content developed for the web and some of it may find its way to conventional media. But this is not the show. Too bad.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 11:41AM
Ryan said...
Riiight. It was the "tight shots" and "intimate stories" that were inappropriate. Whatever he needs to tell himself.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 12:06PM
Robobagins said...
Exactly.
2-28-2008 @ 11:54AM
kevjohn said...
Maybe they'll have beeter success with "quintilelife". Whatever you call it, just keep the shows about the good-looking twentysomethings with remarkably shallow lives coming!
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 12:24PM
Karen said...
See, here's where I don't get these people's thinking at all. The "tight shots and intimate stories" would have "worked better on cable, [Herskovitz] thought, but not on NBC."
What does that even MEAN? I don't even pay attention to what channel I'm watching; I watch shows that are good. This is the kind of bullshit rationalization that makes me CRAZY.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 12:54PM
DiggyZazz said...
The network debut had the worst Nielsen rating in 20 years. Gee ... I wonder why. Do you think the idea of a whiney 20-year old spending her time "blogging" wasn't a compelling premise? They should have called it "Getalife".
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 1:03PM
Richard Lawler said...
It failed because it sucked. I have never liked the characters of a TV show less than I did everyone on that abomination.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 1:16PM
Dragulf said...
Wait! This isn't NBC's wave of the future? The guy loves the girl and a different girl liked the same guy and the other guy liked the first girl and the second girl and the last guy was just desperate for any girls attention. Oh yeah, and the first guy is a man whore. p.s. The blond was seen as sexy and slept with everyone but was told she was ugly because she hid behind her beauty. Almost as complex as October Road but no he might be my kid: NOT! storyline. I felt like I was watching Dominos falling for an hour.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 2:02PM
Paul said...
I think it means on cable they can have a crappier show because the ratings that's required of them is lower then a network show. They think this show is a niche market show because of the way it's shot. But that's complete stupidity. It's a bad show with a used to death premise, shallow characters and absolutely no diversity for being in an urban city are the problems of this show. It's got nothing to do with anything else.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 2:29PM
Karen said...
I think you're probably right, Paul. But I agree that it's stupid. Cable shows may not need the exact same numbers as network shows to be judged a "success" but they generally still have to be, you know, good.
What a pissant thing for Herskovitz to have said.
2-28-2008 @ 2:44PM
ambercrayon said...
I tried watching this show online and hated it, why would I want to watch it on my tv? As a 25 year old I was supposed to be the target market (I think), and all I can say is that this was a failure all around.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 3:08PM
heinlein said...
I like some of H&Z other shows, but this one was just NOT good. It is made by two veterans, but probably with much less studio/network interference than usual, so maybe it is a good thing sometimes for shows to get directions.
While I agree that the pretty girl wasn't pretty and it was quite boring and stereotypical, so was the worst part for me that they were supposed to be like 25 and were still so extremely pretentious. Most people I know stopped trying to be pretentious for the sake of it at 20 or never was.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 4:26PM
reed said...
ABORTED TV SHOWS: A TRIBUTE
http://www.maxim.com/Abortedtvshows/articles/17592.aspx?src=tstats
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 8:27PM
Oreo said...
As everyone else said he just complain about as much as possible to cover for the fact no one cares about the show.
Reply