THX7966

Thought this was worthy of a separate thread. Interesting article in one of the TV trades...


Cable Future for Fox's 'Arrested'?
Speculation Runs High After Net Cuts Episodes
By James Hibberd
Fans of the critically acclaimed Fox Network sophomore comedy "Arrested Development" are hoping their prayers will be answered this spring. First, they hope Fox will renew the show. If that doesn't happen, they are praying that a cable network will pick it up.

However, among the networks often bandied about as potential surrogate homes for the Emmy Award-winning comedy, few would be willing to take it over with the same cost of production. According to an informal survey of network and industry insiders by TelevisionWeek, several outlets would consider the show but only a couple would be likely to make an offer.
"I would love to have it," said one top cable network executive. "And I think there are a lot of people who would think long and hard about it. But there's a question about whether it would be a success on cable. Also, it might be cost-prohibitive."

Speculation that Fox is going to cancel the low-rated comedy has been buzzing since former entertainment President Gail Berman cut the current season order from 22 episodes to 18. Insiders say the recent exit of Ms. Berman, who was a longtime champion of the show, makes its prospects more dire. Ms. Berman's replacement, former FX head Peter Liguori, has said it's "completely premature" to weigh in on the subject.

Fox has until its May 19 upfront to decide whether to renew the series.

"There has been a lot of chatter and casual talk from other networks about `Arrested,' but we so badly believe that the show belongs on Fox," said "Arrested" executive producer and Imagine Television President David Nevins. Imagine Television and 20th Century Fox Television produce the show. "We've had no outside conversations. All of our focus has been on getting it back on Fox."

But some of that talk has been from "Arrested" creator and showrunner Mitchell Hurwitz, who recently declared he will shop the series to cable if Fox cancels it.

(Another broadcast network home does not appear to be in the cards.) The subject has even been addressed in the show: In the March 27 episode, the Bluth family's housing development company was placed in jeopardy when an order is unexpectedly reduced from 22 to 18 homes-similar to Fox's episode order dwindling from 22 to 18. The company survives only by relocating to less-expensive quarters. (Read: "Arrested" might have to move to lower-rent cable real estate.)

For cable executives, however, buying "Arrested" raises two key concerns:

w The cost. With its single-camera production, frequent on-location shooting and ensemble cast, "Arrested" insiders put the show's cost at about $1.5 million per episode-very expensive for a half-hour comedy on cable. Cable has shown an increasing willingness to pay production costs comparable to broadcast. But even hour-long dramas such as "Nip/Tuck" and "The Dead Zone" tend to cost around $1.3 million per episode, and cable half-hours cost between $300,000 and $1 million. Any cable network interested in "Arrested" would likely push producers to reduce costs or share DVD residuals.

w The audience. "Arrested" draws about 6 million viewers per episode-poor for Fox, but fantastic for any cable network. But how much of the show's audience would follow "Arrested" to cable? On this point, the consensus is promising. Viewers who enjoy the snarky intelligence of "Arrested Development"-which more closely resembles cable comedies than broadcast-are probable cable subscribers. If only half of Fox's seemingly loyal "Arrested" fans make the jump, that's a hit in cable.

"Arrested Development," which centers on a dysfunctional Orange County, Calif., family, premiered in 2003 and immediately made a critical splash with its literate humor and documentary-style execution. Though ratings have consistently put the show in the red with Fox, nonstop accolades-such as winning a 2004 Emmy for best comedy series-and Ms. Berman's support have kept it on the air.

Cable channels have successfully picked up network shows before. "The Surreal Life" was canceled by The WB after two seasons, then found a new life on VH1. "The Family Guy" became a hit on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim after being canceled by Fox.

The "Family Guy" example is presumably another reason Fox has been reluctant to pull the life-support plug on "Arrested"-it's embarrassing when a cable network makes ratings lemonade from your lemons.


Which Cable Net is 'Arrested's' Best Fit?
By James Hibberd
TelevisionWeek spoke to nearly a dozen TV insiders, including agents, producers and cable network executives, to compile a list of likely and not-so-likely cable network destinations for "Arrested Development" should Fox cancel the series.

HBO: Critics often say "Arrested Development" has an HBO sensibility. With the premium network's deep pockets and commitment to quality, HBO would seem to be a good fit for the program, except for one problem: HBO doesn't air TV shows. "It's not TV, it's HBO" is more than a tagline, but a dead-serious branding philosophy. Regardless of the quality of "Arrested," it's still a broadcast television program. From Fox, no less. HBO considers itself a creative leader and would be reluctant to buy a network castaway.
USA: USA can afford "Arrested" and has the household base to ensure that fans can find the show. But insiders say the network's upcoming branding campaign, the details of which are still unannounced, will not be conducive to positioning a half-hour sitcom.

Showtime: President of Entertainment Robert Greenblatt has proved he is willing to take risks (renewing "Huff" before its premiere) and is in serious need of a hit. Like HBO, Showtime prefers to develop original programming. Another question is how much of the "Arrested" niche audience would translate to Showtime's limited universe. Still, the show would probably be a boon for the network.

FX: Like HBO, the Fox-owned network is another commonly cited potential "Arrested" destination that is less likely than it appears. FX does not want to be seen as Fox Junior and already has a packed development slate. Still, with former FX Networks President and CEO Mr. Liguori named president of entertainment for Fox Broadcasting last month, he might look to FX as a way to keep the acclaimed, home-grown "Arrested" in the corporate family. The series would also provide the drama-packed FX with an element the channel lacks: a sense of humor.

TBS: Most musings on the cable prospects of "Arrested" neglect to mention TBS, but the "Very Funny"-branded network would be one of the top contenders for the show. TBS has made a business of acquiring quality network sitcom properties ("Seinfeld," "Friends," "Everybody Loves Raymond") and is willing to spend money to make money (TNT's upcoming "Into the West"). Cost, however, would still be a concern.

Comedy Central: If Fox cancels "Arrested Development," executives from Comedy Central will be ringing Mr. Hurwitz's cellphone within the hour. The Viacom-owned network is the ideal home for "Arrested" in the cable universe (and, perhaps, in the overall television universe). As with TBS, cost is an issue, although the network has been known to pony up for particularly valuable and proven fare. (Example: The $50 million payday it gave Dave Chappelle for a deal that included the renewal of "Chappelle's Show" for two seasons and a development deal.) Spike TV could also benefit from the show, but Viacom would more likely want "Arrested" to go where the brand fits best, and by all accounts that's Comedy Central.

Jackskeleton

Actually, the cut from 22 to 18 was a move to protect it from getting canceled. It would have stunk up sweeps and that would have given them justification to cancel it. And honestly, the talk of it being canceled have been going on since before season 1 ended. It's always been on the chopping block.

The level of fandom for the show and reaction to potential news of it being canned will keep this on the air for another season at the very least. You also factor in that FX head is now there and wants to do a good balance of quality shows mixed in with high ratings. It wont be a friendly move to cancel one of the shows that everyone is loving. It may not bring in the best ratings of the night, but it's doing better than anything else that fox is showing on sunday nights line up other than simpsons.

Also, it's one of the highest rated shows when it comes to TiVo ratings and DVD sales have been fantastic.

JTH182

I think Jack hit the nail on the head... They can't cancel a show that is SO critically acclaimed, can they? It's not like it's a total bust either...

I really liked one of the recent commercials (paraphrased from memory): FOX brings you a show with all the romance of The OC, all the drama of HOUSE, and all the suspense of 24, from the writers of the 5 time Emmy award winning show Arrested Development... Arrested Development!

Michael Corvin

I'm still not sure if I buy that. It sounds legit, but think of all the weeks we have had reruns and the fact that this week is the finale(I think), there are still 3 or so weeks until May sweeps. They could have easily done a full 24 episodes and still ended before May sweeps.

Even though HBO sounds unlikely, if they went that route it would be the first time I would subscribe to thier channel.

The article does raise a solid point, if only half the viewers follow the show to a cable channel it would be a hit for a cable show. That + the critical acclaim and awards makes me wonder if it seems very likely we will have our show, somewhere on the dial.

maxpower

I agree...the excuse that it is to save it from sweeps is pretty thin as mentioned they could have just aired the new eps instead of reruns. I would like to know their reason as to why another net would not pick up the show. They just mentioned it was alluded to in march's last episode. But that was more joke than anything and did not give a reason why it would not be picked up. I still think AD would fit with NBC as it's comedy tends to be more in the vein of AD when compared to CBS and ABC's fare. Scrubs and the office(from what I've read) are a less traditional sitcom lineup that would welcome AD's comedy.

Red Dog

If the ratings aren't good on FOX why do you think they would be good (a money-maker) for an NBC? Just because they have non-laugh track comedies? The Office is not doing well anyway.

maxpower

I think NBC would be better able to advertise it and fit it with compatible shows. As mentioned in other threads, AD may be hurt more than helped by it's current lineup. While NBC may not be all-knowing, Fox has more than one time shown they are not the best at programming that Sunday night lineup.

Red Dog

I think FOX did it a tremendous favor by airing at 8:30 behind The Simpsons. You can't blame FOX for AD's failure to draw a larger audience.

Michael Corvin

But what kind of a lead in is a cartoon? It doesn't matter how well the simpsons does, I don't think they are hitting the same demographic.

NBC is in the crapper, and they need quality shows, but I would hate to see this happen, even if they paired it with Scrubs. Why? They would cancel it after a few airings. A cable network is a better option.

Red Dog

I view The Simpsons as a comedy that happens to be a cartoon. I think there is a similar demographic there given the style of humor on both shows.

I love AD, I think people need to face facts - AD is not the kind of show that will ever draw good ratings, no matter what you pair it with (unless you throw behind a juggernaut like American Idol). That's just the way things are. Yes, cable (and a shortened 13-ep season) probably is the best place for it.

Groucho

I'm surprised the episodes are that expensive, especially when compared to other FX shows.

BabiG

Sports Night. Also, I think the Wayne Brady Show won an Emmy after it got cancelled.

I think they are actually, which is why they moved it there. The first season they had it behind Malcolm or Bernie Mac (can't remember), and it didn't fit in there either. At the time people were saying it would be a better fit behind the Simpsons, like what they did when Malcolm in the Middle first came on. It doesn't seem to have helped though...which is dissapointing to me, because I thought the timeslot move would help a lot (I couldn't watch it every week last season because of conflicts with other shows).