In Defense of TV Cancellations

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

fantasmic7 — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:32:18 GMT

I think we the viewers would like to think that the networks are making some kind of informal contract with us when they put a new show on tv. Obviously shows cannot last forever. Some go away because the stars choose to end it themselves (Seinfeld and Raymond) but others get cut just because not enough people are watching, but that doesnt mean people dont still love the show. For me personally, the most annoying thing is when a show is cut down before it has a chance to do it full story arc and the viewer is left dangling. If anything, the networks could find a way to let a show end without having to be a sudden cancellation. At least when we know a show is in its final season, we know the writers have a chance to complete the story and instead of an unresolved cliffhanger at the end of the season, we can get some kind of closure. Tv, while it is certainly different from movies, I think has the same effect on a viewer in that we would not accept the projectionist turning the movie off with 45 minutes to go. When a show is cancelled suddenly, that is exactly what happened. I think essentially the attitude you are presenting is "get over it" and that attitude leaves the networks in complete power and able to base all their decisions solely on money, rather than a concern for the viewer they are trying to attract.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

rab015 — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:46:06 GMT

30 Rock, the most overrated show on TV....What's so funny?

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

MissAmerica — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:31:40 GMT

I don't understand why "Monk" was cancelled. I read that the ratings have increased every season.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

mustireallyweighin — Fri, 22 May 2009 01:55:52 GMT

Little bit of a strange article. Of course, tv is a business and shows have to make money. What, I think, annoys fans is when networks clearly have no interest (which makes no sense) in having a show succeed. Firefly was aired in bad timeslots, out of order, with no advertising. No wonder it failed!

It is a double edged sword. If the networks want me to try new shows, then they have to give it a reasonable opportunity. Today, Seinfeld would have been canceled after it's first season (it had miserable ratings) and that trend seems to leave shows without the opportunity to succeed.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

deholland — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:29:38 GMT

If you are a fan of a cancelled show, contact the network and let them know! More than one show has been revived through viewer support. My entire family enjoys "The Unusuals", which is funny, quirky, and you never know what to expect. We love the subplot of discovering everyone's secrets. The actors and filming are exceptional. Unfortunately, "The Unusuals" was canceled after only six shows! How can that possibly be considered a fair chance?

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

edutech — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:37:19 GMT

I think that the trend toward replacing scripted shows with reality TV is getting old. I used to watch a few reality TV shows, until they became so over the top and, frankly, ran their course. I would be less concerned about shows being cancelled, although still disappointed, if I knew that the another quality show would be added to the line-up.

I was a fan of Jericho and I am a fan of Chuck. I am happy that Jericho was brought back for a conclusion, although I think a two hour movie would have been better, given the quality of the shows we got. I hope this doesn't happen to Chuck. Although I loved Jericho, Chuck is a far superior show and deserves more investment from NBC. It is extremely well written, witty, fun, well acted, and creative. I think if more people started watching, they'd get hooked. My husband, who does not watch network TV - only movies, has been sucked in by Chuck and it's many cultural / movie/show references. It's an action dramedy...how creative. How many other shows of similar quality are replaced by reality, instead of a new high quality scripted show?

TNT and USA have been creating great shows like Leverage, The Closer, Monk, Burn Notice, Saving Grace and SciFi has Eureka. Then there's FX and A&E with shows. Perhaps networks can take a look at the formulas that are working over there? Given the current economy and so many people dropping cable, and with TV going digital in a few weeks, it seems to me network TV has an opportunity (perhaps its last before internet TV takes over) to make in-roads, if only they try.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

O!Susannah — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:49:57 GMT

Part of the problem is that when shows are canceled, the viewers are given no closure as to the characters. If networks instead instituted a "soft" cancellation which gave the canceled shows a 2-hour movie or 5 episodes to wrap things up and provide some sense of closure to the viewers, many would be more amenable to the process. However, when we lose shows like "Pushing Daisies" and "Arrested Development" and "Freaks & Geeks" and just about any decent sci-fi show with little to no resolution, it gets frustrating.

How many more bad reality shows and cop or hospital dramas do we have to be subjected to while good, creative writing and production slips down the drain (or onto cable channels)?

One now-canceled show not mentioned in the article which should have been given a wee bit more is "the Sarah Conner Chronicles." It's entirely possible that "Terminator:Salvation" could have revived this well-written, plot- and character-driven show through to a solid conclusion.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

Celtia — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:52:04 GMT

The only network shows I watch are "Ugly Betty" and "House". The rest of network television is nothing but a gossip-riddled dung heap. Except for those two hours every week with Betty and Greg, I'm reading in my free time, or watching the History Channel, Discovery, or PBS.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

O!Susannah — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:06:22 GMT

Additionally, many networks do not take into account "time-shifted" viewing for people who DVR ... or the number of people who pop onto Hulu to watch or stream from the networks' sites. B/c of the convenience of these features, more and more people are viewing according the THEIR schedules rather than the networks' schedules.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

stdntprhcr — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:13:01 GMT

It appears that in this age of instant gratification, television networks are not immune. Gone are the days when television networks would give shows on the bubble time to find an audience. Now, networks barely give a full season for shows to build an audience before they decide to cut the strings. It appears, if a show is not another Lost, Desperate Housewives, or Heroes, then it may be cut, giving room to new shows that may deliver that instant cult fave status.

They set aside the fact that many shows on the air now are popular because they were consistent and were able to build up a fan base. NCIS, the reportedly number one rated show, was not number one the season it debuted, but slowly gained ratings as seasons passed. The same could be said of many other shows, like CSI: NY, CSI: Miami, Criminal Minds, and Chuck. Shows that have potential, like Pushing Daisies, Jericho, Knight Rider, and Life on Mars are being cancelled, despite being popular and unique. Seriously, giving the Bionic Woman at most three episodes to garner an audience after the writer’s strike? Maybe if networks are serious about boosting ratings, they should look at marketing models and action figures of television shows again.

Networks will argue that the decision is based on money. They want to know how much advertising they can sell and that is based on ratings. What they don’t evidently take into consideration is that Nielsen rating system may be dated. Many people do not watch television at night anymore because of work or other commitments. Instead, they tape them, TIVO them, or watch them online through either the network’s website or sites like HULU. The question is, do the networks take these viewers into consideration when making cancellation decisions? If so, how to they track or statistically quantify these viewers?

The networks, much like most of the U.S. government, need to get with the 21st century. Otherwise, viewers are going to wonder why they should invest in a show when there is a strong likelihood it would be around long. Instead, they may choose Internet-based media rather than network television much like Americans chose foreign-made vehicles over American-made ones when it appeared American manufacturers took American buyers for granted and started producing less reliable vehicles.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

counselortroi2 — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:27:34 GMT

Some of the cancellations come about because the network idiots play tag football with the series long beforehand: moving it around, pre-empting the show for some other show, failing to advertise the changes, so the audience is often left wondering what the heck happened! I will miss "Without a Trace"because I really like the ensemble cast. I am glad that CBS is picking up "Medium", which is one of my favorite shows, again in large part because I like the cast. Apparently my other faves, such as the "Law & Order" franchise, and the "CSI" franchise are safe for now, as well as "Cold Case" and "Numbers". I occasionally watch "House", but find the exaggeration of his dysfunctionality unpleasant. Except for news programs and some shows (definitely NOT the "reality " shows) on History, etc., that's about it for my TV watching. Give me a good, well-scripted crime drama with an interesting puzzle to solve and a cast that I like, and I'm happy. I hate cancellations because they deprive me of this experience.

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

dmiles13 — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:49:05 GMT

all i have to say is Firefly. Fox never gave this a chance - they only aired a few episodes, which were out of order, constantly moved the time slot, and never advertised for it. Yet this show has such a strong following that there are yearly conventions, and even a movie made years after the show was cancelled. sometimes, it doesn't even matter if there is a demand for a show, the networks will do whatever they want,

re: In Defense of TV Cancellations

polithica — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:45:54 GMT

So what do we end up with? Bland medical dramas, predictable crime dramas, more late night talk shows, and enough "reality" tv to choke a python. Thank god for the internet and premium cable.