|
Originally Posted by Drop
Ultimately, Season 3 was the make it or break it, and FOX just shit all over the show. Seasons 1 and 2 were make or break seasons as well, and it made it both times. I still can't see how someone can say FOX shit all over the show in S3. It gave it a benign timeslot and allowed it air over a good number of successive weeks, and it was getting beat by a show on the WB. The ratings showed no sign of going up, and we all know it isn't the kind of show where it is easy for a newbie to jump right in and get it. What is FOX is supposed to do? |
I wouldn't exactly call 3 weeks, a good number of successive episodes. then yanked for weeks on end then show two more and then yanked for a few weeks until we get one this week. Ratings can not improve if the show is only on periodically.
Originally Posted by Drop
Then people blame the show for not being easily accesible. Both Michael and Alia called BS on that. There is so much dirty humour and physical comedy, that any Joe Schmoe could get into it. Is it confusing at first? Of course. But is it also very funny? You bet. But people do get confused, and then FOX shifts it around or puts it on a long Hiatus. People forget about the show and those new viewers might as well never have happened.
marathons and dvds as well as EXCESSIVE advertising seemed to help 24 survive. That is on their own network. It just seems they only want to get behind certain shows. Do they really need to advertise the Simpsons every commercial break after 16 years? Where were the ads for AD? Pander to the LCD and show the slapstick jokes in the commercials. Just renewing a show does not mean the network did all they could. That just means they were hip to the awards and critical acclaim to try and let it survive on that alone. |
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
marathons and dvds as well as EXCESSIVE advertising seemed to help 24 survive. That is on their own network. Help 24 survive? :hscratch: What kind of ratings did 24 start with? |
I commend Fox for keeping the show on the air as long as they did. Face it, it has failed in every time spot it's been in (it was on-the-bubble throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3).
Hopefully it'll have a Family Guy-style popularity boost and resurgance. It's a great show. And as long as IFC doesn't get the show (Man how they killed Greg the Bunny) it'll be great to see back. 24 rated around 8 million viewers during it's first season. Second thru Fourth have had about 10 to 11 million. But unlike 24 which is still striving to meet the quality of season 1 (And still hasn't done it), AD has been getting successively better imho. |
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
I wouldn't exactly call 3 weeks, a good number of successive episodes. then yanked for weeks on end then show two more and then yanked for a few weeks until we get one this week. Ratings can not improve if the show is only on periodically.
True but AD had the same hiatus as the other FOX shows with October baseball. |
marathons and dvds "Oh, Friday night is a shitty night, no one watches tv" is what I hear when I bring this up. Tough shit, it's a fuck'n chance that the studio gave it. Even with great DVD sells on season 1 and a major push through season 2 in advertising which failed (thus why piss away more money if it wasn't working) what is fox suppose to do? I can tell you from behind the scenes that it has had its head in the noose from the very beginning and you should be thankful you got two and a half seasons of it with the ratings it was pulling in. |
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
Blame WB for that fuck up. Fox really could give a fuck about producing Angel or anything else that is first run syndication aslong as someone is paying for it. Goes along the same lines as reba. Aslong as it's on someone' else's bill they don't mind making it. They'll let someone eat the cost of first run and then just enjoy the hell out of optioning it out after the first run syndication is done with and they have the 100 episodes down the hatch. With Angel WB wanted to go with a failed pilot and didn't renew angel. Fox attempted to shop it around but after the low ratings Buffy got on UPN, they didn't want Angel and thus it was canceled. So it's really on WB's head that Angel got fucked over.
"Oh, Friday night is a shitty night, no one watches tv" is what I hear when I bring this up. Tough shit, it's a fuck'n chance that the studio gave it. Even with great DVD sells on season 1 and a major push through season 2 in advertising which failed (thus why piss away more money if it wasn't working) what is fox suppose to do? While I'm sure it can do better on another network, maybe one that won't keep changing the schedule on the show, any network that picks it up has to realize that it'll probably be their loss leader (one can say the reason NBC won't pick it up as they have two struggling sitcoms of that nature already on their schedule -- Scrubs and The Office). This is a show they'll simply keep on the air simply for the fact they'll rake in emmy nominations and wins every year. |
I don't think FOX gives a rat's ass about the critics, as they shouldn't.
|
If the show continued raking in Emmys and other awards it provides another selling point for the network as a whole, and at the least keeps them out of the hands of the other networks. It's not like Fox has another show to come in behind and sweep up the awards AD will be leaving on the table.
|
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
If the show continued raking in Emmys and other awards it provides another selling point for the network as a whole, and at the least keeps them out of the hands of the other networks. It's not like Fox has another show to come in behind and sweep up the awards AD will be leaving on the table.
I think people tend to overrate what the awards mean to the networks. You think CBS would rather have the #1 show on TV or the Emmy Winner for Best Drama? |
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
If the show continued raking in Emmys and other awards it provides another selling point for the network as a whole, and at the least keeps them out of the hands of the other networks. It's not like Fox has another show to come in behind and sweep up the awards AD will be leaving on the table.
|
Jeez, you can blame Fox all you want, but it's the American public and the 90% of them with crappy taste that tanked AD, in the end.
|
As much as I'd love to blame Fox, I really can't. I still think they promoted the hell out of Season 2 and gave it a prime slot and it tanked there, worse than season one (and that's a slot that live-actioned "Malcolm" thrived in until he hit puberty).
Yes season 3 got the shaft, but I was pretty stunned it came back at all. I hope the move materializes. It's such a wonderful show I'd hate to see it die. I know HBO doesn't take on other's shows, but this one makes so much sense : it features two leads who were HBO staples in the past, it's producers made HBO's most-acclaimed mini-series, it's full of smart jokes that require attention from the audience, it lacks a laugh track. With SATC and 6FU gone, HBO needs quality shows to brag about come Emmy time and the loyal AD fans are perhaps the most devoted of any TV comedy -- ever. Certainly their increased subscription rate and the ancillary DVD sales would make up for the show's high production costs. Hey, I've seen The Comeback, I've seen Extras -- they're not getting an armful of Emmys from those shows next fall. If HBO wants to keep being "Buzzworthy" with their line-up they need some bold moves. This one would seem like a no-brainer, if they ever got over their stupid "It's Not TV, It's HBO" mindset. Who knows, maybe Showtime will pick it up just to stick it to them. If I were their president (God forbid), that's what I'd do. |
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
It's a shit situation, but you have to remember that this is a business and AD is taking up the biggest sound stage at the fox lot and if it's not producing profit at the end of the day, the investors would feel better about getting something in there that will hold its own. |
^^Ha, I like the way you think.
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
While it was 99% The WB's fault, FOX could've shopped it around. Buffy got low ratings on UPN, because it was UPN.
Have it as a loss leader? Take the critical acclaim and don't deal with the critical backlash that's going to occur when the show is sealed and dealed cancelled? Fox is already the whipping boy for critics out of the major networks and the cancellation of this show will get them more whips. Christ, it's only their second show to get an Emmy win for "Best Comedy Series" and it hasn't self destructed yet like Kelley's Ally McBeal (their first win). At least treat the show with some respect because God forbid, they're not going to see a show of this calibur again for a while. While I'm sure it can do better on another network, maybe one that won't keep changing the schedule on the show, any network that picks it up has to realize that it'll probably be their loss leader (one can say the reason NBC won't pick it up as they have two struggling sitcoms of that nature already on their schedule -- Scrubs and The Office). This is a show they'll simply keep on the air simply for the fact they'll rake in emmy nominations and wins every year. Even more so, I hate how people claim that AD was tossed around time slots. Sundays at 8:30 and Monday at 8. That's it. Were they taken off the air for certain times? Yes, but that was sweeps and that was to keep the show alive. If it was left on during sweeps they would have had no choice but to cancel it because of how it would have tainted the sweeps numbers for the business. As much shit talk as people wish to do on Fox, they have the balls to make these programs when others wouldn't even have touched them years ago and stuck with the safe Law and Order or CSI spin off show for ratings. Be thankful you got two and a half seasons of this great comedy. |
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
Sure, a critic loved, emmy winning show is great, but if it is a huge loss leader, taking up the biggest sound stage on the lot and performing terribly even though tossed it a lot of promotions during its second season and recieved nothing in return other than some pat on the back by critics.. it wont matter. Someone said it best here. They want a profit at the end of the day and they want ratings. Really, who cares what critics like aslong as you like it. This show sadly had the general public not support it. Not because of a lack of ads, a lack of tossing it in your face. They did. The public just didn't care to invest the effort in getting into it.
|
Originally Posted by Sierra Disc
Jeez, you can blame Fox all you want, but it's the American public and the 90% of them with crappy taste that tanked AD, in the end.
That's the answer folks but to be more specific, the Nielsen families. Case in point, the awful War at Home is getting better ratings in the post Simpsons slot than Arrested Development ever did. Is that Fox's fault too? BLAME THE VIEWERS |
.... You have got to be shitting me.
Yeah, FUCK FOX!! Stupid bastards, It was far too late to promote it during its second season! WTF were they thinking? They might aswell have put a bullet in its head right then and there instead of sticking to an order of 18 episodes and pulling its ass out of the fire and sheltering it from sweeps where it would have been perfectly clear and just cause for cancelling it. If I recall correctly, Fox did the exact same thing for season 2 that they did for season 3. That is show the first season in order again leading up to the season 2 premiere because they understood that they couldn't just toss this out of order and have it make complete sense or develope viewers. Even with that it failed. So lets see, it's not pulling the best numbers with Simpsons... what should we do? Hey, we have this other show that has the similar feel as Arrested Development along the lines of demographs, so why don't we see if putting them together could draw in the crowd.. Hell, you're bumping up AD to be a lead in show, there's some confidence in that. Lets see if it works.. Nope, guess not when it's just barely beating UPN's monday night show.. and as we know from this thread.. Who the fuck watches UPN? But if it's not one thing with the haters it's another. There will never be justification for them, it'll always be another reason as to why Fox failed with this show when in reality it was the masses that failed in picking it up. Article in Variety! This is the story of a critically acclaimed show that never clicked with viewers, and the one network that had no choice but to cut its losses ... it's "Arrested Development." That's a play on how a Ron Howard voice-over opens each week's episode of the Emmy-winning and critically hailed Fox laffer. But you wouldn't know that, since -- judging by the show's ratings -- you weren't watching. With the skein averaging just a 2 rating and 6 share in the key adults 18-49 demo this season, Fox's patience appears to have finally run out. The net recently reduced "Arrested's" 22-episode order to 13, and yanked the show from the final three weeks of the November sweep. "Nobody has used the word 'canceled,' " says creator Mitch Hurwitz, who notes that the show managed to come back for a third season despite being cut back last year as well. "There's a chance the model here is to get to 100 episodes as slowly as you can, as opposed to as quickly as you can," he says. Still, more than ever the writing seems to be on the wall. Die-hard fans no doubt hope the show will pull a "JAG" and end up on another net, but its high cost makes that a long shot. Recently announced VOD and iPod deals have even prompted some industry spitballing about the show moving to a pay-per-view model. Unfortunately, that business model is probably too young to exploit on behalf of a major studio-driven skein. Even before a formal funeral for the Imagine/20th Century Fox skein, network forensic scientists are starting to dissect how a show with rabid fans, Emmy kudos and universal critical hallelujahs could fail to deliver an audience. One major industry mantra that seems to have been debunked by the "Arrested" experience: the idea that the networks simply have to practice patience, and auds will eventually show up. (Call it the "Cheers"/"Seinfeld" rule, which didn't work here.) "I can't say Fox was impatient with 'Arrested,' " says one rival net exec (although others noted the net pulled back on its promotion for the show). Other lessons are obvious -- critic love and award recognition doesn't guarantee viewership, for example. "All the critics in the world can beat everybody over the head to watch it, but they're going to choose whether to (watch) on their own," says the San Francisco Chronicle's Tim Goodman. "Plenty of people took my advice and then wrote back, 'Nah, I don't really care for it.' " Not that viewers weren't goaded several times for refusing to check out "Arrested." Standing at the Emmy podium in September, Hurwitz said, "The Academy has twice rewarded us for something that you people won't watch." "Arrested" may have simply been too unusual and challenging for a traditional network audience. And the show's serialized aspects may have made it tough for new viewers to sample. "This show may not be for everybody," Hurwitz says. "You always have to consider that." Fox insiders note that "Arrested" producers were asked to make the show less serialized, but wound up producing even fewer self-contained episodes in seasons two and three. "There were a lot of call backs to jokes from previous episodes or seasons," Goodman says. "That's the genius of the show, but it's complicated." Goodman says he also heard from readers who said they didn't find any of the "Arrested" characters likable, even Jason Bateman's central figure, Michael Bluth. In that case, "it might have been suited for cable," says one exec. Meanwhile, Goodman also wonders if viewers still haven't accepted the single-camera form -- although the success this season of NBC's "My Name Is Earl" and "The Office" would seem to debunk that myth as well. One exec believes nets are too quick to declare failure when it comes to single-camera shows. "The networks historically experiment less with single camera," the exec says. And while dozens of traditional laffers have flopped in recent years, "One single-camera show fails and they say, 'See, single-camera doesn't work.' " Scribe Ian Gurvitz ("Wings," "Becker"), who's going single camera for his next project, the in-the-works NBC show "50/50," says that, ultimately, content trumps form for viewers. "It's not about single-camera or multicamera," he argues. "It's about doing unique shows. What made 'Earl' work is that it's funny and fresh. "Sometimes the networks can learn the wrong lessons from these things." "Arrested Development" will end the season with 52 episodes to its name -- not as many as fans would like, but a solid number nonetheless. "This is more than I ever expected," Hurwitz says. "I've got nothing to complain about." |
Excellent if the show finds another home...as I was just watching the opening screens on the Season 2 DVD and will miss it if not, this show is comedic genius. I'll be sure to own each episode on DVD if this is truly the end.
|
Who the fuck watches UPN?
Originally Posted by Jackskeleton
The answer.. about the same number that watches arrested development. Face the facts, this show appeals to the niche audience like you and I but it is something that the general masses really just doesn't want to get into for one reason or another.
move the show to UPN where it will be considered a ratings SMASH! which reminds me...gotta change my sig... |
Good idea. that means we'll get to see a lot more of Franklin
|
When does AD officially end on FOX? I notice its back tomorrow night with a new episode along with Kitchen Confidential.
|
Arrested Development already proved that it is not good as a Lead in show because Kitchen Confidential is canceled. It'd be great if it got picked up elsewhere, but I'd rather not get too optimistic and be pleasantly surprised if it does happen, then get my hopes up again only to be smashed again. Steph |
Great news! If the show was to move to cable, I do hope they keep censoring comedy bits though.
|
We have this same converation in every single Arrested Development thread.
"FOX sucks! They screwed the show and didn't support it!" versus. "FOX did what they could, the audience just isn't tuning in!" I don't think anyone is going to change their minds by now. |
Anyone read Entertainment Weekly's blurb on the Monday episode of AD? EW has done all they could to get people to watch this show.
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT HEIDI KLUM AND 15 OTHER SUPERMODELS COMPLETELY NAKED!! *program subject to change If that doesn't get people to watch, then I don't know what will. |
If the potential for carmen electra getting an award didn't drive folks to see it, nothing will. :(
On the other side.. Near USC? http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5...iccompjpg9.jpg |
Originally Posted by Ketamine
Anyone read Entertainment Weekly's blurb on the Monday episode of AD? EW has done all they could to get people to watch this show.
ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT HEIDI KLUM AND 15 OTHER SUPERMODELS COMPLETELY NAKED!! *program subject to change If that doesn't get people to watch, then I don't know what will. |
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Which is why I said "extremely rare."
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
JAG. Step By Step. The Outer Limits. Stargate SG-1. Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
|
Originally Posted by Red Dog Which is why I said "extremely rare." Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel JAG. Step By Step. The Outer Limits. Stargate SG-1. Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
Originally Posted by nightwing82
Plus The Critic, Sister Sister, Matlock, Sabrina the Teenage Witch and Get Smart
|
11 shows over the past what -- 20 years? Even if you only hit one show in five that's moved networks, I think Red Dog's "extremely rare" is still pretty accurate.
Don't get me wrong -- if Fox decides not to order a fourth season, I hope AD becomes one of the extremely rare shows that finds life on a new network. I'm just not laboring under any illusions that it's likely to happen. |
I think something to consider with all the "extremely rare" cases listed is that they are linked by each having a devoted fanbase. And said fanbases made it their duty to make the shows they love as accessible to new fans as possible.
|
Originally Posted by dogmatica
I think something to consider with all the "extremely rare" cases listed is that they are linked by each having a devoted fanbase. And said fanbases made it their duty to make the shows they love as accessible to new fans as possible.
|
It think the AD fanbase is MUCH more devoted than Firefly or Angel but then again I was never in to any of those shows. But my friends that were in to Buffy never started watching Firefly or Angel.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.