PDA

View Full Version : AD News from TVWeek.com


Azlen
01-17-2006, 03:20 PM
http://www.tvweek.com/lockland.cms?articleId=29233

The site requires free registration.

"A few weeks ago, news broke that Showtime and ABC were vying for the presumably canceled Fox comedy "Arrested Development." Turns out ABC offered producers Imagine Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television a 13-episode commitment to the series, which a network spokesperson has now confirmed. Showtime, meanwhile, has offered a two-year commitment, which would likely translate to 26 episodes. Sources said producers are still mulling both offers. Meanwhile, the series continues to struggle on Fox, with its most recent episode drawing a mere 4.2 million viewers. Sources said an ABC deal, especially in the wake of the show's most recent performance, is unlikely. Last year Fox reduced the third-season order of "Arrested" from 22 to 13 episodes. Though the show has not been officially canceled, the reduction triggered a clause in the show's contract enabling producers to shop the series elsewhere."

dswallow
01-17-2006, 03:32 PM
While I've never watched the show even once, I'd really like to see it move to Showtime.

(And I'd watch it)

mwhip
01-17-2006, 04:01 PM
Well they can't do anything with the show until FOX officially cancels it. Right now the FOX prez is saying he is waiting for the 2-hour "finale" numbers along with meeting with their development department regarding the show. I guess he wants to see if they have anything better on the horizon or if they need to keep it.

DevdogAZ
01-17-2006, 04:24 PM
It's gotta be tough to be in Fox's position on this one. You have a show that you really like and you want others to like it too. However, despite your best efforts, the show fails to gain a following and you feel like you have to let it go. As soon as you make a little noise about letting it go, several other networks jump up and say they want to take it off your hands. Suddenly, you have to wonder if you really want to let it go after all. What are these other networks planning to do with the show that will make it more successful? Can we figure that out and do the same thing? We don't want to keep a struggling show just for the sake of keeping it, but at the same time, we don't want to be known as the network that cancelled a show that turned out to be a major hit.

dswallow
01-17-2006, 04:37 PM
It's gotta be tough to be in Fox's position on this one. You have a show that you really like and you want others to like it too. However, despite your best efforts, the show fails to gain a following and you feel like you have to let it go. As soon as you make a little noise about letting it go, several other networks jump up and say they want to take it off your hands. Suddenly, you have to wonder if you really want to let it go after all. What are these other networks planning to do with the show that will make it more successful? Can we figure that out and do the same thing? We don't want to keep a struggling show just for the sake of keeping it, but at the same time, we don't want to be known as the network that cancelled a show that turned out to be a major hit.
You're assuming Fox execs think.

DevdogAZ
01-17-2006, 04:41 PM
You're assuming Fox execs think.
Good point.

4inziksych
01-17-2006, 04:55 PM
It's gotta be tough to be in Fox's position on this one. You have a show that you really like and you want others to like it too. However, despite your best efforts, the show fails to gain a following and you feel like you have to let it go. As soon as you make a little noise about letting it go, several other networks jump up and say they want to take it off your hands. Suddenly, you have to wonder if you really want to let it go after all. What are these other networks planning to do with the show that will make it more successful? Can we figure that out and do the same thing? We don't want to keep a struggling show just for the sake of keeping it, but at the same time, we don't want to be known as the network that cancelled a show that turned out to be a major hit.

Oh just cut the crap and let go of it already (directed at them, not you)! They've messed it up so badly - if I didn't have TIVO I would never have been able find it in all the places they've hidden it. Just let go.

They're probably just afraid it WILL be a hit and they'll then look like idiots.

JPinAZ
01-17-2006, 05:06 PM
Right now the FOX prez is saying he is waiting for the 2-hour "finale" numbers along with meeting with their development department regarding the show. I guess he wants to see if they have anything better on the horizon or if they need to keep it.

They want to see if it will get better numbers, so they decide to put it up against one of the biggest events of the year? I'm surprised they didn't decide to air it during the Super Bowl.

ckelly5
01-17-2006, 05:50 PM
...What are these other networks planning to do with the show that will make it more successful?...

The thing is, if Showtime were to get it, and they got 4-5 million viewers, it'd be a huge hit for them. Showtime wouldn't have to do much at all so ensure a success (assuming AD viewers would subscribe to showtime, which assuming I know AD viewers, they would)

Rob Dawn
01-17-2006, 05:58 PM
I'm a HUGE AD fan (AD Season 1 & 2 are the ONLY DVD TV sets that I have) but I would not subscribe to Showtime to watch it - I'd wait for the DVD set to come out and buy that - it would be like paying for the show twice!
Hopefully Showtime/ABC take in to account potential revenue from DVD sales in their consideration of whether to pick the show up.

Rob

DevdogAZ
01-17-2006, 06:17 PM
I'm also a huge fan and wouldn't subscribe to Showtime. However, my reasons are not because of money or the show itself, but because I'd have to get digital cable (or satellite) to get Showtime and I'm not interested in having a cable box. I like being able to use the tuners built into my TiVo, TV, and VCR. Perhaps that will change when cable card devices become more common, but for now, I'm happy with my set up the way it is.

4inziksych
01-17-2006, 06:24 PM
I'm a HUGE AD fan (AD Season 1 & 2 are the ONLY DVD TV sets that I have) but I would not subscribe to Showtime to watch it - I'd wait for the DVD set to come out and buy that - it would be like paying for the show twice!
Hopefully Showtime/ABC take in to account potential revenue from DVD sales in their consideration of whether to pick the show up.

Rob

I'm watching the 1st and 2nd season dvds which I just bought. I have never bought any dvd's of any tv show before, I never even bought tapes of tv shows before tivo. That's how much I love AD. BUT, I think it's way more enjoyable to watch the show on TIVO, the pause and ff on dvd is too awkward. IT's been said before, and I didn't know what they meant, but that show is meant to be watched on a tivo. Could possibly explain the ratings.

DoubleAK
01-17-2006, 06:33 PM
While I love AD, I can't see myself subscribing to Showtime just to see it. I'd probably buy the DVDs instead. But of course I'm hoping Showtime does pick it up so the show can live on!

And I think Fox did a horrible job in promoting this show. If they put half the effort and budget into hyping this show as they did for 24, Idol, Prison Break, etc. this show would be a hit. Even that awful Michael Rappaport sitcom gets more promotional time! :(

pawchikapawpaw
01-17-2006, 06:39 PM
While I love AD, I can't see myself subscribing to Showtime just to see it. I'd probably buy the DVDs instead. But of course I'm hoping Showtime does pick it up so the show can live on!

And I think Fox did a horrible job in promoting this show. If they put half the effort and budget into hyping this show as they did for 24, Idol, Prison Break, etc. this show would be a hit. Even that awful Michael Rappaport sitcom gets more promotional time! :(

ugh. the war at home. that's almost as unfunny as bernie mac.

DougF
01-17-2006, 07:24 PM
...Hopefully Showtime/ABC take in to account potential revenue from DVD sales in their consideration of whether to pick the show up.

Rob

I don't think Showtime or ABC would share in DVD revenue. Wouldn't the company that produces or distributes the show get that money?

funbox
01-17-2006, 07:41 PM
Its actually really discouraging but so far the general concensus is that not many would subscribe to Showtime for AD. Personally it pisses me off a little bit, but I can appreciate that there are certain circumstances where someone couldn't financially afford it. For those that could but wouldn't want to, try and understand that Reality TV and fluff are taking over the public airwaves. Its already been determined that the quantity of people that appreciate intelligent and demanding shows is slim. If that same minority isn't willing to do something in order to support their shows (sadly buying DVD's is too little, too late and we all know that money is about the only method of support any business cares about) then expect tragedies like Freaks & Geeks, Sports Night, Firefly, Undeclared, Arrested Development, Scrubs, etc.

jerobi
01-17-2006, 08:37 PM
Its actually really discouraging but so far the general concensus is that not many would subscribe to Showtime for AD..

It can be a hard sell to subscribe to any pay channel for just one show. I wouldn't get HBO just for Deadwood, etc. I wouldn't get Showtime just for Weeds. But HBO has a nice list of 6-8 series that I enjoy. Showtime has maybe 2 or 3, at best. Adding Arrested Development makes Showtime signifigantly stronger in the battle for my dollar, and I think that many A.D. fans would share in that assessment.

Frank_M
01-17-2006, 11:54 PM
I would get Showtime just for AD. I've heard good things about Weeds, etc... and AD would be just the kick to get it. And while they've been ramping up their original programming battle with HBO of late, the aquisition of AD would really be a very newsworthy event.

The positive press alone they'd get for "saving" it would a boon to them.

Here's the bigger question I have with regard to the show moving. Who would own the rights to reruns? Would Showtime be able to run Seasons 1-3? You'd hope so.

funbox
01-18-2006, 10:55 AM
It can be a hard sell to subscribe to any pay channel for just one show. I wouldn't get HBO just for Deadwood, etc. I wouldn't get Showtime just for Weeds. But HBO has a nice list of 6-8 series that I enjoy.

Yeah, the thing is though, if someone did get HBO just for Deadwood, they would discover The Wire, Rome, Sopranos, Carnivale, Entourage, CYE, SATC, Da Ali G Show. Its important to give these niche channels a shot. I can't imagine what TV would be like right now if HBO hadn't taken over, but its a scary picture.


Showtime has maybe 2 or 3, at best. Adding Arrested Development makes Showtime signifigantly stronger in the battle for my dollar, and I think that many A.D. fans would share in that assessment.
Yeah outside of Weeds, Sleeper Cell & AD I have little interest in any of the shows on Showtime. But the quality of those three shows gives me hope that they're paddling in the right direction.

NoThru22
01-18-2006, 11:36 AM
I don't think Showtime or ABC would share in DVD revenue. Wouldn't the company that produces or distributes the show get that money?
Normally the network doesn't get a slice but I bet that whoever saves the show will make profit sharing on the DVD sales as part of the deal.

bigcb37
01-18-2006, 11:42 AM
Thats why FOX is airing the final episodes...they dont care about the ratings they just dont want to give another network a cut of DVD sales that include 4 unaired episodes.

Steveknj
01-18-2006, 12:05 PM
I'm a HUGE AD fan (AD Season 1 & 2 are the ONLY DVD TV sets that I have) but I would not subscribe to Showtime to watch it - I'd wait for the DVD set to come out and buy that - it would be like paying for the show twice!
Hopefully Showtime/ABC take in to account potential revenue from DVD sales in their consideration of whether to pick the show up.

Rob
That's exactly what I'd do. I can't see subscribing to a network for just one show. Now if it was On-Demand, I might shell out the money for it, but I think I would just Netflix the season and watch it then.

Azlen
01-18-2006, 01:15 PM
The problem becomes if enough people aren't willing to subscribe to Showtime to watch the show then there won't be any DVDs to buy.

mwhip
01-18-2006, 01:17 PM
Here is the whole transcript from The Futon Critic (http://www.thefutoncritic.com). Man I thought I was going to like Peter Liguori he's just as bad as the others:

Here's a breakdown of the related quotes:

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #1

QUESTION: Could you reflect, because you've got a couple major sitcoms ending in the spring, and also should I ask you, is "Arrested Development" for sure going to end on February 10th? Is that going to be the last day for it?

PETER LIGUORI: Let's deal with them in two parts. As far as "Arrested" goes, we ordered 13 for this season. We are going to run four episodes in a row on that February date. I have to be frank with you, it is highly unlikely the show is coming back but no definitive final answer has been made on that.

QUESTION: Okay. So what I'd like to ask you to do is just reflect over all, because it's kind of a pivotal point for you. If "Arrested" goes, those are three major sitcoms ending a run. A lot of people are having trouble with sitcoms. You were going very heavily four-camera stuff and the two new ones you've shown us are very strongly camera-ones. Tell us what you think the state of the sitcom is at this point.

PETER LIGUORI: It's daunting, but I think the state of the sitcom runs cyclically just like every other genre. Right now the sitcom isn't in its most healthy state, but we're always one great show away from that turning around.

I just look back to the '70s when Norman Lear came on the scene. People were really talking about the demise of the sitcom back then. So from our standpoint, we're out there every day, trying to find show runners and show creators with a vision. It is daunting when you realize that there are aging comedies on the air on Fox, but we're looking at it from a long-term perspective. We're out there aggressively developing and hoping to replace those shows.

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #2

QUESTION: Peter, your left here. You stopped short a little earlier of giving a definitive answer on "Arrested Development" and I'm just curious about that for one thing. I'm wondering what calculations are left to be made. And second of all, there's a lot of talk about a couple of other networks perhaps, you know, being interested in getting that show on their air. So is it fair to the producers to kind of leave them hanging if you're almost certain you're going to kill the show here?

PETER LIGUORI: My goal is to be fair with the producers and fair with everyone here. It is highly unlikely "Arrested" is coming back. What new calculations are available? I mean basically we'll wind up looking at where our development is. We'll wind up seeing what those four episodes do. We anticipate those four episodes will be populated by the loyal audience and we're in dialogue with Mitch all the time.

QUESTION: Peter, in the back, continuing that line of -- yeah, in the middle.

PETER LIGUORI: Okay.

QUESTION: Specifically, two networks were allowed to negotiate with the producers, and report says it's because there was a -- something triggered in the contract when you reduced the season order from 22 episodes to 13 episodes. I was wondering why you let them do that and if that's just a one-time think that you granted to "Arrested Development." Also, what do you anticipate for the thinly disguised jabs at FOX in the last four episodes?

PETER LIGUORI: First and foremost, let's talk about where the show is going. You should ask the studio. You should ask Mitch what's going on with that. At this point, I don't know. But look, it is regrettable that we could not find the audience that that show deserved. It is in fact a studio property. If there's interest at other networks, it's the studio's right and Mitch's right to move that on and put that up to bid.

Now, in terms of the jabs, it would be really duplicitous of us as a network to put a dampening effect on the great art of the spoof. We have a good relationship with the show runners. I think it is great humor to turn it back on FOX a bit. And I think we've made fun of ourselves consistently. I think you've seen it on "The Simpsons." We have a sense of humor about the business. We have a sense of humor about ourselves. And we're glad it's Mitch that's doing it because he does it with great dexterity.

QUESTION: Are you holding out your decision, your final decision on "Arrested Development" in part because these other networks are talking to them?

PETER LIGUORI: No. Two separate issues.

ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT EXCHANGE #3

QUESTION: Peter, earlier you said that there -- you didn't see a major difference between the philosophies between FOX and FX. And I was thinking back to comments you made a couple years ago about, when you were still at FX, that you would like to have a certain show if FOX canceled it. What's your relationship with FX like now? Has it changed from when Gail was in this position? And did you have any discussions about "Arrested Development" with FX?

PETER LIGUORI: Needless to say I'm way more intimate with FX than Gail was and have a great relationship with John and sit back and admire everything that's going on with that network. You know, I just look back at the -- last week, the creative of "The Shield" and the phenomenal ratings that FX did, the tremendous finale of "Nip/Tuck." And John and I, I would say, talk almost on a daily basis. So we've discussed many, if not every show. I enjoy that relationship. Whatever is good for FX is good for News Corp., and we've lobbed many ideas back and forth over the net.

QUESTION: How about "Arrested"?

PETER LIGUORI: You know, we have thought about how to work that out. The biggest difficulty for a network like FX is, "Arrested Development" is an expensive show. And it's way more difficult to make the economics of that show work on FX versus another network broadcaster.

QUESTION: Would it surprise you that Showtime was interested in it given the --

PETER LIGUORI: Again, I know nothing about those negotiations. But if you just look at it as an outside observer, from a numbers standpoint, if Showtime were able to migrate the absolute numbers that "Arrested" gets on FOX to Showtime, that would be by far and away its Number 1 show. So as far as hearing those rumors and saying, "Does that make sense for a Showtime?," strategically, numerically, quantitatively, probably.

jerobi
01-18-2006, 01:26 PM
Great Futon Critic piece.

We anticipate those four episodes will be populated by the loyal audience and we're in dialogue with Mitch all the time.

Wow, there's a positive outlook and a lesson in show promotion if I ever saw one. Essentially they don't care who watches, since if anyone watches it's probably just the fans we already know about. Nice. At least we can thank them for airing them at all!

Sparty99
01-18-2006, 02:14 PM
Its actually really discouraging but so far the general concensus is that not many would subscribe to Showtime for AD. Personally it pisses me off a little bit, but I can appreciate that there are certain circumstances where someone couldn't financially afford it. For those that could but wouldn't want to, try and understand that Reality TV and fluff are taking over the public airwaves. Its already been determined that the quantity of people that appreciate intelligent and demanding shows is slim. If that same minority isn't willing to do something in order to support their shows (sadly buying DVD's is too little, too late and we all know that money is about the only method of support any business cares about) then expect tragedies like Freaks & Geeks, Sports Night, Firefly, Undeclared, Arrested Development, Scrubs, etc.
What, pray tell, do you expect people to do that goes beyond watching the show and buying DVD's? Showtime - if they're smart - could very likely negotiate a cut of DVD profits into the show's contract. If I'm willing to wait until the DVD comes out, rather than paying for the show twice, why should I be subjected to someone telling me that that pisses them off because I'm ruining their show?

NoThru22
01-18-2006, 03:08 PM
At least we can thank them for airing them at all!
BURN IN HELL FO... wait, what?

NoThru22
01-18-2006, 03:17 PM
Showtime - if they're smart - could very likely negotiate a cut of DVD profits into the show's contract.
Wow! What an original thought! ;) (the wink makes it okay!)

funbox
01-18-2006, 03:37 PM
What, pray tell, do you expect people to do that goes beyond watching the show and buying DVD's? Showtime - if they're smart - could very likely negotiate a cut of DVD profits into the show's contract. If I'm willing to wait until the DVD comes out, rather than paying for the show twice, why should I be subjected to someone telling me that that pisses them off because I'm ruining their show?

If you want the show to survive, then subscribe to the channel it actually airs on. Its not a straight to DVD feature. It can't afford to be. Would you say that you're paying for a film twice if you saw it in the theatre and then bought it on DVD? I can accept fans who don't think its worth it or can't afford it. People just being chinsy about something they get pleasure out of and needs their help to survive does piss me off.

hefe
01-18-2006, 03:51 PM
Sorry to be chinsy, but I'm not subscribing to a whole other network for 1 show.

I'd consider buying it on the internet directly if they offered it at a reasonable price...

JPinAZ
01-18-2006, 03:53 PM
Wow, there's a positive outlook and a lesson in show promotion if I ever saw one. Essentially they don't care who watches, since if anyone watches it's probably just the fans we already know about. Nice. At least we can thank them for airing them at all!

As I said above, they say they want to see how the numbers for the final 4 episodes turn out. Yet they choose to air them against the opening ceremonies of the winter Olympics. The only worse time they could have chosen would be to air them against the Super Bowl.

dswallow
01-18-2006, 03:57 PM
Sorry to be chinsy, but I'm not subscribing to a whole other network for 1 show.

I'd consider buying it on the internet directly if they offered it at a reasonable price...
Technically you could probably just subscribe for 3 or 4 months and see them all if it's just going to be 13 episodes per season.

And the way DirecTV is with complaints, they practically throw 6 free months of Showtime at anyone who experiences a problem.

Amnesia
01-18-2006, 03:57 PM
The only worse time they could have chosen would be to air them against the Super Bowl.Hardly. How about the Oscars?

hefe
01-18-2006, 04:01 PM
Technically you could probably just subscribe for 3 or 4 months and see them all if it's just going to be 13 episodes per season.

And the way DirecTV is with complaints, they practically throw 6 free months of Showtime at anyone who experiences a problem.
If they gave it away, sure. But for $12/mo, and they'd probably have it occupy 4 pay cycles...I'd either wait for the DVDs, or see if they offer it via iTunes or something, or maybe even consider *cough*torrent*cough* other options...

ddockery
01-18-2006, 04:12 PM
For the record, I probably qwould sub to Showtime for this, but would likely cancel as soon as the season ended. Unless of course I got hooked on something else.

smak
01-18-2006, 04:47 PM
If every current subscriber watched AD on Showtime, and they get few new subscribers, I don't know how that would help Showtime. With no advertising, the amount of viewers really doesn't matter.

How they decide which shows to produce and air is lost on me.

I guess getting people not to drop the service is just as needed as getting people to buy it, so they need to produce quality programming.

If Showtime picked it up at 13 episodes a year for 2 years, I wonder how that would effect the actors. Their salaries would be at least cut in half, and you'd think some of them would want to go on to other projects.

-smak-

Rob Helmerichs
01-18-2006, 05:08 PM
If every current subscriber watched AD on Showtime, and they get few new subscribers, I don't know how that would help Showtime. With no advertising, the amount of viewers really doesn't matter.
Um...people PAY for Showtime. And some of that money goes to the network.

The more people subscribe, the more money they make. That's the ONLY way they make money.

hefe
01-18-2006, 05:15 PM
Um...people PAY for Showtime. And some of that money goes to the network.

The more people subscribe, the more money they make. That's the ONLY way they make money.
I think I get what smak is actually saying though...Showtime already has X subscribers, with or without AD. The number that actually are watching a given program doesn't really matter (advertising) because it is subscriptions that matter.

If they bring on AD, they will be taking on the production cost, but will they be increasing subscriptions and revenue as a direct result of this show being on...?

If they take AD, how many new subscriptions make it worth the investment? Do they have a prayer of actually making more money as a result of this show? If basically the only audience for AD turns out to be the existing subscriber base, then what have they gained?

Unless you also factor in the cost of losing subs that are prevented by taking on a show like this, but how could you even quantify that? But I'm sure the highly paid programming executives are well equipped to figure all that out. ;)

ddockery
01-18-2006, 05:38 PM
If the order is 13 episodes a seaso and the actors know that, they could take o additional work and stay with the show as well. Obviously it would be their choice, but I get the impression this one is fun to work on. Of course, I also WANT it to be fun so they stay.

Rob Helmerichs
01-18-2006, 05:49 PM
I think I get what smak is actually saying though...
But what he actually SAID is "With no advertising, the amount of viewers really doesn't matter." Which, of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.

hefe
01-18-2006, 05:51 PM
But what he actually SAID is "With no advertising, the amount of viewers really doesn't matter." Which, of course, is the exact opposite of the truth.
How about this then...

Ratings don't matter, subscriptions do.

funbox
01-18-2006, 06:07 PM
Subscriptions matter. With Weeds (Go MLP) and potentially picking up AD, they create critical buzz for their network, bridge the gap between them and HBO and attract new subscribers. The general thought process by Showtime is not only would they be getting a whole lot of critical love but that AD's fanbase is so loyal it would probably bring over a percentage (10-15%) of that 4 million people that somehow figure out what time its on every week. What scares me is that they may be in for a rude awakening. Granted, this isn't The OP, but compared to other cult audiences (who would kill for the opportunity to subscribe to Showtime in order to see their favorite series continue) I think this cult lacks gumption.

jerobi
01-18-2006, 06:14 PM
I think I get what smak is actually saying though...Showtime already has X subscribers, with or without AD. The number that actually are watching a given program doesn't really matter (advertising) because it is subscriptions that matter.

If they bring on AD, they will be taking on the production cost, but will they be increasing subscriptions and revenue as a direct result of this show being on...?

If they take AD, how many new subscriptions make it worth the investment? Do they have a prayer of actually making more money as a result of this show? If basically the only audience for AD turns out to be the existing subscriber base, then what have they gained?

Unless you also factor in the cost of losing subs that are prevented by taking on a show like this, but how could you even quantify that? But I'm sure the highly paid programming executives are well equipped to figure all that out. ;)


I think a common misconception people are making with the AD->Showtime rumor is that Showtime would buy AD for more subscribers, and vice versa. There is a tipping point involved for pay networks. If Value(Movies + Shows) > Cost, people will buy. Right now Showtime doesn't really interest me other than Weeds. Would I pay just to watch Weeds and the occasional movie? No. Would I pay if you added A.D. to the mix, and possibly came out with a new worthwhile series? Probably.

HBO knows how to do it. They try to keep an original series or two running at all times. That's value for the viewer. I wouldn't get HBO just for Deadwood, but when you toss the other shows into the mix, it's worth it. If Showtime wanted to add a show established fan base, AD is a solid move.

Update: Bah, funbox beat me to the Submit button! :)

markp99
01-18-2006, 06:21 PM
On Comcast, I hope we might find AD available OnDemand @ $3.95 a pop That might be a cheaper way to buy by the drink.

ddockery
01-18-2006, 06:40 PM
On Comcast, I hope we might find AD available OnDemand @ $3.95 a pop That might be a cheaper way to buy by the drink.

How much does Comcast charge for Showtime? While the show is in season, that would be $16/moth. On DirecTV Showtime is only $12.

Sparty99
01-18-2006, 07:32 PM
Has anybody considered the idea that it may just be time to let the show go? The British version of The Office was arguably one of the most brilliant TV sitcoms ever. How many episodes did it have? Less than 30, I'm sure. I'd rather not see the same people ranting and raving for the show to get another lifeline to come back in a year and say it's lost its edge. There's only so long that a quality show like this can keep it up.

getbak
01-18-2006, 07:41 PM
The British version of The Office was arguably one of the most brilliant TV sitcoms ever. How many episodes did it have? Less than 30, I'm sure.

12 regular episodes and one special.

hefe
01-18-2006, 08:32 PM
Plus the UK Office is overrated. ;)

jpm37
01-18-2006, 08:48 PM
Kinda out of the blue, but I was just watching an Imax movie on INHD called Ultimate G's. And I'm looking at the kid in the movie wondering why he looks so familiar. Well, it was our favorite cousin lover... George Michael Bluth. Just needed to mention it to somebody, and none of my friends are AD fans. Sorry for the interruption.

Ultimate G's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240143/)

Sparty99
01-18-2006, 10:00 PM
Plus the UK Office is overrated. ;)
Personally, The Office isn't my cup of tea. But it seems to garner a lot of respect on these boards. My point was that the majority of sitcoms run their course and then run for another 5 years. Inevitably, people say they've "jumped the shark". Wouldn't it be moderately more satisfying to see a show go out on top quality wise rather than begging for a home and seeing its quality go downhill?

hefe
01-18-2006, 10:45 PM
Personally, The Office isn't my cup of tea. But it seems to garner a lot of respect on these boards. My point was that the majority of sitcoms run their course and then run for another 5 years. Inevitably, people say they've "jumped the shark". Wouldn't it be moderately more satisfying to see a show go out on top quality wise rather than begging for a home and seeing its quality go downhill?
Actually, I don't disagree with you.

The fact is that in this case Fox gave the show a 2nd chance, and for whatever reason, it didn't produce good ratings. I really don't have much of a quarrel with them, except that they should **** or get off the pot. Just make the cancellation official, and let the show go do what it needs to do to get picked up elsewhere.

If this is the end, I'll be bummed, but it won't be that bad. I may even pick up the entire series on DVD, which I don't normally do. With a shorter run, I like the idea that the whole set is a more manageable amount. (The only other TV show I own is Firefly, 14 episodes) I would never even attempt to own all of some other shows like the Simpsons or Friends. It's too overwhelming. And if AD were to go on and on, I might get to that point with them too.

So, I'd like to see it continue, but we still got about 50 episodes out of them. That's not too bad.

EchoBravo
01-19-2006, 06:26 AM
Its already been determined that the quantity of people that appreciate intelligent and demanding shows is slim. If that same minority isn't willing to do something in order to support their shows (sadly buying DVD's is too little, too late and we all know that money is about the only method of support any business cares about) then expect tragedies like Freaks & Geeks, Sports Night, Firefly, Undeclared, Arrested Development, Scrubs, etc. Sorry, I don't buy this argument. There is plenty of great TV out there on regular cable and even (to a much lesser extent) the networks. I'm not shelling out more for pay channels when I already feel I'm being raped each month by Cox.

(That last line sounds worse when read aloud).

I love Arrested Development, but if it goes away, I can deal with it. I won't even commit to buying the DVDs. If I haven't bought Star Trek DVD sets, I'm certainly not buying DVDs from some comedy.

Bottom line is, I don't "owe" any TV studios or producers anything. If they put on stuff I want to watch, I'm there. If they don't, well, that's fine too. The only "supporting" I'm willing to do is watching good TV. I s'pose I'd fill out a Nielsen diary if I were asked, but nobody's asking.

midas
01-19-2006, 06:48 AM
Yesterday afternoon I was watching MadTV reruns. The opening of the show was a fake promo for some FOX show. The voiceover said something like, "FOX, celebrating 8 weeks without a cancellation." I thought it was pretty funny.

The truth is, this is not the first time FOX has put a show on their schedule that ended up with dismal ratings. They can go ahead and cancel AD, but the odds are pretty high given their track record that whatever they replace it with will also be a flop. Their batting average is probaly below the Mendoza line (obscure baseball reference). It's just amazing that they only have 2 hours a night to fill and they still can't come up with anything better than SKATING WITH HAS-BEENS.

mwhip
01-20-2006, 05:19 PM
Here is some info from Kristin Veitch at E! onlline:

Showtime confirmed to we TV Critics that the network is indeed in talks with Arrested D.'s studio, 20th Century Fox, to pick up the show next season.

Showtime Entertainment president Robert Greenblatt says, "I always thought it was probably a better fit on a cable network than on a broadcast network. And you know, in fact, I think it really does fit in with a lot of the things that we're doing."

The issue? Fox needs to CANCEL THE DANG SHOW ALREADY. And also, apparently, Mich Hurwitz isn't 100 percent positive he wants to carry it on another season. "I think he's the genius behind it," Greenblatt says. "And he hasn't yet come to that decision to continue the show. He's been through a lot of sort of emotional roller coaster over the last couple years. So he finished the season for FOX, and he's in that period of, you know, thinking about whether he wants to continue the show."

... PLEASE? ...

Showtime CEO Matthew Blank says that picking up the show "at a point in time where we're having a good deal of success both critically and commercially makes a really big statement for us. There's a lot of things we could be doing right now. But for me, the prospects of having Arrested Development and Weeds on this network, you know, at the same time are quite remarkable."

More scoop coming in Monday's chat ...

Paperboy2003
01-20-2006, 05:46 PM
Great news except for the fact that the creative genius behind the saw is wavering

smak
01-20-2006, 06:21 PM
There's a point where a show can run it's course, and should retire, but i don't think 3 years is close to that point.

If they don't sacrifice anything by moving to Showtime or wherever (like not having enough money to let everybody come back), they I think they should do it.

If the same creative team stays, there's no reason to believe it will go anyway towards downhill.

Seinfeld is pretty much regarded as going downhill its last few years, but Larry David left, and he was just as big a part of the creative team that Jerry was.

-smak-

Warren
01-20-2006, 07:58 PM
I really hope that abc or showtime pick up this show.

weymo
01-20-2006, 09:17 PM
BURN IN HELL FO... wait, what?

Oh, no you were right. BURN IN HELL F :mad: X. I refuse to be thankful for their largesse in offering up the last episodes since it's dying off because of them. And yes, I think it is safe to say they will do whatever they can to keep other networks from getting it so they can control the DVD sales.

Check out the history of Wonderfalls if you doubt.

They've learned how to double-dip. Get folks interested and then sell them the DVD. The rare exception is 24. If they don't have a huge-scale hit, they cut and run. I guess they think they'll eventually be able to populate their entire grid with huge-scale hits. If you look at the American Idol 3-night juggernaut format over the next couple of months, you'll find few other networks are even trying to compete. Maybe Nielsen's inclusion of TiVo viewing will help other networks realize that time-shifters are loyal viewers too...sometimes more loyal.

Warren
01-20-2006, 11:08 PM
I think that if Fox had aired a show each week with out stopping to show a baseball game or what have you, then this show would have done better.

I don't think the shows on Fox are the problem its Fox themself

smak
01-20-2006, 11:18 PM
It's obviously not the shows.

And it's not the people at FOX who decide to order a pilot, or pick up that pilot for an episode commitment.

We can go over the big list of FOX shows that they canned way too early, but a lot of those shows were quirky or genre shows.

Why even let Wonderfalls, or Greg The Bunny or Firefly or AD on the air when you know it's not Two and A Half Men.

-smak-

gchance
01-20-2006, 11:34 PM
It's obviously not the shows.

I sure miss Manimal. BURN IN HELL, FOX!

Greg

kbohip
01-24-2006, 03:33 AM
I liked the show so much I'd have to say I'd get Showtime just for AD alone :o. Hell, I pretty much only got HBO for "Rome" anyway.

appleye1
01-24-2006, 04:16 AM
The thing is, if Showtime were to get it, and they got 4-5 million viewers, it'd be a huge hit for them. Showtime wouldn't have to do much at all so ensure a success (assuming AD viewers would subscribe to showtime, which assuming I know AD viewers, they would)

PETER LIGUORI: Again, I know nothing about those negotiations. But if you just look at it as an outside observer, from a numbers standpoint, if Showtime were able to migrate the absolute numbers that "Arrested" gets on FOX to Showtime, that would be by far and away its Number 1 show.

I just can't see a majority of those 4-5 million current viewers going over to Showtime to watch. I have no way of knowing how many of those viewers have a Showtime subscription, but I would bet it wouldn't be a large percentage. And I would also bet that not that many non-subscribers would sign up for Showtime for just this show.

I guess Showtime could come up with an estimate of the actual numbers though, and I hope it's enough to entice them. Between ABC and Showtime, I think Showtime would be the most likely to give AD the time it needs to be successful.