NBC Upfronts 2012 - Schedule Released

[mwhip]

Information from The Futon Critic:

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2012/05/13/nbc-reveals-its-2012-13-primetime-schedule-505412/20120513nbc01/

NBC FALL 2012-13 SCHEDULE
*New programs in UPPER CASE; all times ET)

MONDAY
8-10 p.m. - "The Voice"
10-11 p.m. - "REVOLUTION"

TUESDAY
8-9 p.m. -"The Voice"
9-9:30 p.m. - "GO ON"
9:30-10 p.m. - "THE NEW NORMAL"
10-11 p.m. - "Parenthood"

WEDNESDAY
8-8:30 p.m. - "ANIMAL PRACTICE"
8:30-9 p.m. - "GUYS WITH KIDS"
9-10 p.m. - "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit"
10-11 p.m. - "CHICAGO FIRE"

THURSDAY
8-8:30 p.m. - "30 Rock"
8:30-9 p.m. - "Up All Night"
9-9:30 p.m. - "The Office"
9:30-10 p.m. - "Parks and Recreation"
10-11 p.m. - "Rock Center with Brian Williams"

FRIDAY
8-8:30 p.m. - "Whitney"
8:30-9 p.m. - "Community"
9-10 p.m. - "Grimm"
10-11 p.m. - "Dateline NBC"

SATURDAY
Encore programming

SUNDAY (Fall 2012)
7- 8:15 p.m. -- "Football Night in America"
8:15-11:30 p.m. -- "NBC Sunday Night Football"

SUNDAY (Post-football/Winter 2013)
7-8 p.m. - "Dateline NBC"
8-9 p.m. - "Fashion Star"
9-10 p.m. - "The Celebrity Apprentice"
10-11 p.m. - "DO NO HARM"

[WhiskeyTango]

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=487286

[mwhip]

There is a link at the top of The Futon Critic page that will take you to previews for each new show

[mwhip]

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=487286

That is a general discussion I figured we could have a thread for each network.

[Bierboy]

Wow....nothing...and I mean NOTHING that I will watch...(other than football)...

[photoshopgrl]

I'm gonna check out Animal Practice just because it's animals and Justin Kirk but it'll have a short leash.

[sharkster]

Wow, I didn't realize how little programming I watch on NBC these days. I only watch Whitney, Rock Center, and sometimes I catch Dateline.

[pkscout]

I'll watch Revolution. It'll get cancelled. You have all been warned. ;)

[sieglinde]

I will give some of the shows a shot.

[DreadPirateRob]

If you're not watching Parenthood, you're missing out. One of the best dramas on TV. But aside from that, and the Thursday comedies (plus Community on Fridays), that's all I watch on that network. Haven't checked out the new shows yet, though.

[Alfer]

Wow..only 1-2 shows I think on that list I plan on watching.

[Steveknj]

If you're not watching Parenthood, you're missing out. One of the best dramas on TV. But aside from that, and the Thursday comedies (plus Community on Fridays), that's all I watch on that network. Haven't checked out the new shows yet, though.

I think I probably watch more NBC than most. I think because they are in such bad shape, their shows have a bigger risk/reward factor. But I watch a lot of their comedies and usually give them all a shot. I agree about Parenthood, although I find it a bit hokey and unbelievable sometimes, I still enjoy the show because I like the characters and how they interact (and for those of you who like Sorkin, the cadence of the speech in Paretnhood reminds me of Sorkin, without the sarcasm).

I think NBC has a lot to offer but their cred is so bad now that nobody cares to watch. Really, this year COULD be their opportunity to get some buzz since they have both SNF AND the Olympics to push their lineup.

[DevdogAZ]

It will be interesting to see if NBC can ever truly recover, or if they'll just hover near the bottom until the other networks' ratings sink low enough to match them.

It gets to a point where the quality of the show doesn't really matter. If the audience isn't there for other shows on the network, it won't be there for the new shows, either. Awake was an excellent show and just never got the sampling.

[DreadPirateRob]

ABC was in pretty much the same situation 10 years ago where people were wondering if it could ever regain its luster, before Lost and Desperate Housewives gave it some much-needed buzz. Granted, the TV landscape is even more fractured now than it was back then, but I still think NBC can come back.

[Steveknj]

It will be interesting to see if NBC can ever truly recover, or if they'll just hover near the bottom until the other networks' ratings sink low enough to match them.

It gets to a point where the quality of the show doesn't really matter. If the audience isn't there for other shows on the network, it won't be there for the new shows, either. Awake was an excellent show and just never got the sampling.

Wasn't NBC in this same boat in the late 70s and early 80s when Silverman was running the network? (I forget his first name). I remember the jokes about that "train" series which was supposed to be like their version of The Love Boat, but tanked big time. It wasn't until The Cosby Show that they finally pulled themselves out of it. It might just take one REAL buzzworthy show to at least make them respectable. They were close with Heroes a few years back but the show couldn't sustain it because the writing got stupid. But there was a lot of buzz for the show for awhile.

[allan]

It will be interesting to see if NBC can ever truly recover, or if they'll just hover near the bottom until the other networks' ratings sink low enough to match them.

It gets to a point where the quality of the show doesn't really matter. If the audience isn't there for other shows on the network, it won't be there for the new shows, either. Awake was an excellent show and just never got the sampling.

That's my problem, not only with NBC, but with TV in general. There are few shows that I regularly watch anymore. If I don't watch, I don't see ads for good shows (if any). I'm sure there are good shows, maybe even on NBC, that I've never tried, just because I don't know of their existence.

[DevdogAZ]

ABC was in pretty much the same situation 10 years ago where people were wondering if it could ever regain its luster, before Lost and Desperate Housewives gave it some much-needed buzz. Granted, the TV landscape is even more fractured now than it was back then, but I still think NBC can come back.
Yes, ABC was in horrible shape after they ran "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" into the ground. Then in fall of 2004 they were able to snap out of it with LOST and Desperate Housewives, and then Grey's Anatomy started in the spring of 2005. However, I think the landscape has changed significantly since then. What we thought of as "horrible" for ABC in 2003 was significantly better than what NBC is currently doing. I think there comes a point where no matter how good the show is, it just can't generate the necessary buzz because with no viewers, it's basically happening in a vacuum.
Wasn't NBC in this same boat in the late 70s and early 80s when Silverman was running the network? (I forget his first name). I remember the jokes about that "train" series which was supposed to be like their version of The Love Boat, but tanked big time. It wasn't until The Cosby Show that they finally pulled themselves out of it. It might just take one REAL buzzworthy show to at least make them respectable. They were close with Heroes a few years back but the show couldn't sustain it because the writing got stupid. But there was a lot of buzz for the show for awhile.
Don't know about the late 70s/early 80s. Wasn't paying attention to the business back then. However, I did just hear an interview with Warren Littlefield last week and he said that during its first season, Cheers finished the season as the lowest-rated show on all of network television. The network asked if they had anything better to replace it with, and when the answer was no, they decided to renew it. The next season, The Cosby Show came on and brought the eyeballs, and suddenly Cheers had the lead in it needed.

But having said that, I just don't know if it's possible to create that buzz anymore. When LOST debuted in 2004 with over 20 million viewers, that was a huge hit. Today, a huge hit would barely get 10 million viewers. And shows are getting renewed with an average of only 4-5 million viewers. At some point, the blip these shows create just isn't big enough to generate the necessary buzz.

[martinp13]

Smash doesn't appear in the weekly lineup, though we know it's been renewed... it was on Monday, so maybe it will be back when The Voice is done?

[DevdogAZ]

Smash doesn't appear in the weekly lineup, though we know it's been renewed... it was on Monday, so maybe it will be back when The Voice is done?
The showrunner got fired so they will probably take a little while to retool it and figure out what they want to change for S2. I'm guessing it will come back in midseason.

[aadam101]

See signature.

[astrohip]

Wow....nothing...and I mean NOTHING that I will watch...(other than football)...

Wow, I didn't realize how little programming I watch on NBC these days. I only watch Whitney, Rock Center, and sometimes I catch Dateline.

Wow..only 1-2 shows I think on that list I plan on watching.

Whitney & Community for me.

[Peter000]

Grimm and the occasional football for me. I know Parenthood is a quality show, but just never got into it.

[mattack]

Community on Fri?? Breaking up 'Must See TV'? Well, that MAY be a bonus, because at least now I can have padding on 30 Rock without causing a conflict on another station (i.e. all NBC Thurs night shows need padding)... Though by then I *might* have enough Viggle Best Buy cards for an Elite.. heh heh.

[Steveknj]

Yes, ABC was in horrible shape after they ran "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" into the ground. Then in fall of 2004 they were able to snap out of it with LOST and Desperate Housewives, and then Grey's Anatomy started in the spring of 2005. However, I think the landscape has changed significantly since then. What we thought of as "horrible" for ABC in 2003 was significantly better than what NBC is currently doing. I think there comes a point where no matter how good the show is, it just can't generate the necessary buzz because with no viewers, it's basically happening in a vacuum.

Don't know about the late 70s/early 80s. Wasn't paying attention to the business back then. However, I did just hear an interview with Warren Littlefield last week and he said that during its first season, Cheers finished the season as the lowest-rated show on all of network television. The network asked if they had anything better to replace it with, and when the answer was no, they decided to renew it. The next season, The Cosby Show came on and brought the eyeballs, and suddenly Cheers had the lead in it needed.

But having said that, I just don't know if it's possible to create that buzz anymore. When LOST debuted in 2004 with over 20 million viewers, that was a huge hit. Today, a huge hit would barely get 10 million viewers. And shows are getting renewed with an average of only 4-5 million viewers. At some point, the blip these shows create just isn't big enough to generate the necessary buzz.

Oh, I agree, the "buzz" these days is not going to be that big, but for NBC, it really doesn't have to be, since they can only go up.

TV has many success stories like Cheers. MASH was a bust it's first year, as we Seinfeld, to of the seminal shows of all time. I think that's why networks stick with shows they feel have some potential.

This is the Silverman I was referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Silverman

And some info on that era at NBC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC#1970s_doldrums

[refried]

So is The Biggest Loser dead?

[DevdogAZ]

So is The Biggest Loser dead?

No, it will be back. It's just not on the fall schedule.

[Haps]

I'm only 5 eps in but I was enjoying awake. Would have thought it had legs. That's a dissapointment.

[DevdogAZ]

I'm only 5 eps in but I was enjoying awake. Would have thought it had legs. That's a dissapointment.

It's very good. The fact that it got no viewers and therefore got canceled had nothing to do with the quality of the show. The only reason it was canceled was because it was on NBC. If CBS had aired this show, it would be a huge hit.

[marksman]

I think one thing the networks need to do is extend their range of building buzz. They are used to relying on days or at most weeks but now it can take a month or even a year for a show to catch on.

In the modern Internet age with so many entertainment outlets it can take a long time for even excellent shows to build an audience .

One would think the networks would come out of pilots with a handful of shows they believe can be successful. If that is the case then they need to really support those shows so they can build an audience even if it takes more than a season.

My problem is I never feel like the networks really believe in their shows it always feels more like they are just gambling randomly.

I know the cable channels don't have to program as many hours but I know 90% of the time when a new cable drama launches I am at least going to get a full season. Creatively I don't know how they expect people to make quality shows, especially dramas, that might end in some random number of episodes.

They are too short-term and results oriented. If they really felt a show was really high quality then their job is to get people to watch it. If they can not determine what shows are good and bad they should be in a different line of work.

Sometimes networks do give shows a chance at it never fully pans out, like Arrested Development. It got a fair chance and never became a hit. That being said if they would have canceled it the six shows they tried to replace it with would not likely do better so they really did not lose money sticking with a project they felt was quality. This needs to be the exception rather than the rule. Their best pilots need to be given extraordinary chances to succeed instead of just making it a numbers game where if you throw up 100 good to mediocre shows two might stick.

[aadam101]

I think one thing the networks need to do is extend their range of building buzz. They are used to relying on days or at most weeks but now it can take a month or even a year for a show to catch on.

In the modern Internet age with so many entertainment outlets it can take a long time for even excellent shows to build an audience .

One would think the networks would come out of pilots with a handful of shows they believe can be successful. If that is the case then they need to really support those shows so they can build an audience even if it takes more than a season.

My problem is I never feel like the networks really believe in their shows it always feels more like they are just gambling randomly.

I know the cable channels don't have to program as many hours but I know 90% of the time when a new cable drama launches I am at least going to get a full season. Creatively I don't know how they expect people to make quality shows, especially dramas, that might end in some random number of episodes.

They are too short-term and results oriented. If they really felt a show was really high quality then their job is to get people to watch it. If they can not determine what shows are good and bad they should be in a different line of work.

Sometimes networks do give shows a chance at it never fully pans out, like Arrested Development. It got a fair chance and never became a hit. That being said if they would have canceled it the six shows they tried to replace it with would not likely do better so they really did not lose money sticking with a project they felt was quality. This needs to be the exception rather than the rule. Their best pilots need to be given extraordinary chances to succeed instead of just making it a numbers game where if you throw up 100 good to mediocre shows two might stick.

The networks make it too difficult to watch a show once it has already started. Most OnDemand cable systems only have the last 5 episodes of a show, as does Hulu and other sites. These restrictions are preventing new viewers from joining once a show starts to get good buzz. Most people aren't going to pay for a show (iTunes,Amazon,etc.) that they have never seen before.

[DevdogAZ]

Just remember, for the networks, it's all about the money. They're running their business in the way that they think will make them the most money. When they gamble on a new show, and after 3-4 airings it's clear that show isn't going to take off, they've got to make a difficult business decision: stick with the show and likely lose a ton of money, or cut their losses and use that timeslot to give something else a try.

20+ years ago, when NBC gave shows like Cheers and Seinfeld a chance after horrible starts, there were very few other options for TV shows people could turn to, so if the network believed the show had a chance, they kept it on and tried to give it a better timeslot or better lead in. But today, that just won't work anymore. Viewers' attention spans are too short, there are too many other options. Once the word is out that a show has received bad ratings, the show basically becomes toxic. Nobody wants to watch and get burned when the show gets prematurely canceled, so because nobody watches, the show gets prematurely canceled.

For every show that gets pulled early, there are a dozen others that last through their first season but never get any traction and then don't get renewed. The reality is that with network TV, only about one out of 100 pitches gets a pilot, only about one out of 10 pilots gets ordered to series, and only about one out of 20-30 new shows that make it to series becomes a hit. Network executives have seen hundreds of good ideas that didn't amount to anything, so they can't get emotionally attached to anything. If it's not going to make them money right away, they have to let it go.

[Steveknj]

Just remember, for the networks, it's all about the money. They're running their business in the way that they think will make them the most money. When they gamble on a new show, and after 3-4 airings it's clear that show isn't going to take off, they've got to make a difficult business decision: stick with the show and likely lose a ton of money, or cut their losses and use that timeslot to give something else a try.

20+ years ago, when NBC gave shows like Cheers and Seinfeld a chance after horrible starts, there were very few other options for TV shows people could turn to, so if the network believed the show had a chance, they kept it on and tried to give it a better timeslot or better lead in. But today, that just won't work anymore. Viewers' attention spans are too short, there are too many other options. Once the word is out that a show has received bad ratings, the show basically becomes toxic. Nobody wants to watch and get burned when the show gets prematurely canceled, so because nobody watches, the show gets prematurely canceled.

For every show that gets pulled early, there are a dozen others that last through their first season but never get any traction and then don't get renewed. The reality is that with network TV, only about one out of 100 pitches gets a pilot, only about one out of 10 pilots gets ordered to series, and only about one out of 20-30 new shows that make it to series becomes a hit. Network executives have seen hundreds of good ideas that didn't amount to anything, so they can't get emotionally attached to anything. If it's not going to make them money right away, they have to let it go.

You're absolutely right. Still, the way it's done always reminds me of that show from years ago (I don't remember exactly which show it was) where they had a chimp throwing things at a dart board and that's how they picked shows and their time slots. :) Obviously, there's more to it than that. But I don't know if the networks after 60 years, have figured out the precise number of episodes to give a show before killing it. And it's a lot harder today, with all the other options.

That's why I kind of like the 13 episode season. Give the show the full 13 episodes, if it doesn't catch on by then, kill it. But we've discussed in the other thread why that will never happen.

[gastrof]

The networks are slitting their own throats by killing shows on cliff-hangers and such.

People will stop watching all together.

Why bother to invest time and interest in a show with an ongoing storyline, if there's the danger of never finding out how things work out?

__________________
You won't be allowed any blue swirls here, Corporal.

[Steveknj]

The networks are slitting their own throats by killing shows on cliff-hangers and such.

People will stop watching all together.

Why bother to invest time and interest in a show with an ongoing storyline, if there's the danger of never finding out how things work out?

__________________
You won't be allowed any blue swirls here, Corporal.

What's interesting is I notice CBS has very few of these types of shows. Most are weekly procedurals. Maybe that's why their ratings are better. People don't want to get involved in shows that have an ongoing storyline but might get canceled before resolution.

[aadam101]

Once the word is out that a show has received bad ratings, the show basically becomes toxic. Nobody wants to watch and get burned when the show gets prematurely canceled, so because nobody watches, the show gets prematurely canceled.



This is exactly what networks should be trying to change. Many cable networks renew shows for an additional season after just one airing. HBO recently did it with VEEP. The show aired on Sunday and was renewed on Monday or Tuesday I believe. They are able to build up confidence in the show this way.

[Steveknj]

This is exactly what networks should be trying to change. Many cable networks renew shows for an additional season after just one airing. HBO recently did it with VEEP. The show aired on Sunday and was renewed on Monday or Tuesday I believe. They are able to build up confidence in the show this way.

You have to wonder:

What if NBC came out and said, Awake has a three year storyline We are committed to the show for those three years, after the pilot got decent ratings (which I believe Awake had after the first episode) would more people take a chance on the show?

First of all no network would ever do this. Second, I doubt that this would convince many to start viewing it from the beginning.

[DevdogAZ]

What's interesting is I notice CBS has very few of these types of shows. Most are weekly procedurals. Maybe that's why their ratings are better. People don't want to get involved in shows that have an ongoing storyline but might get canceled before resolution.

I think I've mentioned it before in other threads in this subject, but network research shows that the average viewer only watches one out of every 2-3 episodes. Those viewers who are fanatic like we are and go out of our way to watch every episode are very much in the minority. This is why smart, serialized shows don't work on network TV, and why CBS is kicking ass with a bunch of cookie-cutter procedurals.

[Steveknj]

I think I've mentioned it before in other threads in this subject, but network research shows that the average viewer only watches one out of every 2-3 episodes. Those viewers who are fanatic like we are and go out of our way to watch every episode are very much in the minority. This is why smart, serialized shows don't work on network TV, and why CBS is kicking ass with a bunch of cookie-cutter procedurals.

And if that's the case, you have to wonder, why they even bother with serialized shows. For every Lost, there's 10 shows of that ilk that fail. Seems silly to even bother. (but I'm glad they do :) )

[aadam101]

You have to wonder:

What if NBC came out and said, Awake has a three year storyline We are committed to the show for those three years, after the pilot got decent ratings (which I believe Awake had after the first episode) would more people take a chance on the show?

First of all no network would ever do this. Second, I doubt that this would convince many to start viewing it from the beginning.

I realize that it may not make economic sense but neither does the current network TV model, especially for NBC. I actually stopped watching Awake after the pilot because I didn't trust them not to cancel it. Now that is has a full season under it's belt, I may watch during the summer.

[DevdogAZ]

I realize that it may not make economic sense but neither does the current network TV model, especially for NBC. I actually stopped watching Awake after the pilot because I didn't trust them not to cancel it. Now that is has a full season under it's belt, I may watch during the summer.

What makes you say that? Sure, NBC would like to be doing better financially, but they're still making money. The networks are still basically printing money. Just NBC and FOX are printing a lot more than NBC.

[Craigbob]

Wow.. I'll give revolution a try and the occasional Football game but that's all I've got on NBC.

I've noticed my SP list dwindling from a high of 33-35 shows to about 24 (all through out the year with most being on USA. TNT or SyFy). Almost nothing on the big 5 any more.

[Mr.Scarface]

Best Show on NBC is Grimm. 2nd was Awake.......and they cancelled it. Sad.......Because besides SVU and Grimm, nothing is watchable on NBC now. We will see how Revolution is........

[Snappa77]

We have a BUNCH of 'Grimm' episodes recorded but haven't gotten to them yet.

So besides football and 'Celebrity Apprentice'... there isn't much to watch on that channel.

I'll give 'Revolution' a shot. That actually looks good. And it has a timeslot that is good for us.

'Do No Harm' looks like a bad soap opera. And 'Chicago Fire' has a been there done that feel to it.

Wish they kept 'Awake'.

[Steveknj]

I realize that it may not make economic sense but neither does the current network TV model, especially for NBC. I actually stopped watching Awake after the pilot because I didn't trust them not to cancel it. Now that is has a full season under it's belt, I may watch during the summer.

You do realize Awake has been cancelled. One has to hope there's at least some closure to the series. So even though you have a full season of shows saved up, you might net get satisfaction that the series will not leave you hanging

[aadam101]

You do realize Awake has been cancelled. One has to hope there's at least some closure to the series. So even though you have a full season of shows saved up, you might net get satisfaction that the series will not leave you hanging

I realize that. I am waiting until the final episode airs to see what people here have to say about it.

The only show that had terrible ratings that I stuck with was Ringer, because of SMG. I knew it would probably be canceled but the show was a lot of fun and love SMG.

[aadam101]

What makes you say that? Sure, NBC would like to be doing better financially, but they're still making money. The networks are still basically printing money. Just NBC and FOX are printing a lot more than NBC.


I read a story almost daily about how some show (or network) hit a record low. Some of these have been all time records, not just for the series or network, but all broadcast networks. Just a month ago the CW debuted The LA Complex which now holds the record for lowest rated broadcast drama debut of all time. It's only getting worse. Change is needed.

[DevdogAZ]

I read a story almost daily about how some show (or network) hit a record low. Some of these have been all time records, not just for the series or network, but all broadcast networks. Just a month ago the CW debuted The LA Complex which now holds the record for lowest rated broadcast drama debut of all time. It's only getting worse. Change is needed.

Yes. Ratings are trending downward with shocking speed. But a) you can't use a CW show to make a point about ratings, since it's not a real network, and b) the fact that ratings are down doesn't mean the networks aren't still making money.

[marksman]

The networks make it too difficult to watch a show once it has already started. Most OnDemand cable systems only have the last 5 episodes of a show, as does Hulu and other sites. These restrictions are preventing new viewers from joining once a show starts to get good buzz. Most people aren't going to pay for a show (iTunes,Amazon,etc.) that they have never seen before.

Yeah this is pretty much my biggest complaint with the major networks. All the commercial cable and pay cable networks do this in a better way from rerunning seasons to on demand etc.

I believe fx is running season 1 of sons of anarchy right now once a week. This kind of stuff matters to viewers.

What the networks don't get is most viewers are choosing between free or already paid for tv. Making it available for 2 on iTunes makes it out of the picture as they have other "free" shows to watch instead.

The networks don't understand they are not just competing against three other networks and a ball of cable channels. They are competing against every single show i have on my dvr, every streaming show I have available to me, any DVDs and any of a hundred channels.

I have hundreds of hours of stuff I already paid for so asking me to pay more to see if I like a show or catch up just means I don't watch.

[marksman]

The networks are slitting their own throats by killing shows on cliff-hangers and such.

People will stop watching all together.

Why bother to invest time and interest in a show with an ongoing storyline, if there's the danger of never finding out how things work out?

__________________
You won't be allowed any blue swirls here, Corporal.

This is a trust issue between viewers and the networks. I have way more trust in all the cable channels I watch that they are not going to screw me over as a viewer and disrespect me.

That being said the big networks did let a number of shows finish out this year but I believe that is primarily because they burned through all their backup shows and not because they started respecting their viewers.

I am much more likely to commit to an Amc, fx or hbo drama than I am a major network. At least I know I will get a full season. On the big four I often wait to see if a show gets canceled before watching it. This is a self defeating business model.

[marksman]

You have to wonder:

What if NBC came out and said, Awake has a three year storyline We are committed to the show for those three years, after the pilot got decent ratings (which I believe Awake had after the first episode) would more people take a chance on the show?

First of all no network would ever do this. Second, I doubt that this would convince many to start viewing it from the beginning.

But if they made it possible to easily catch up their viewer numbers would likely grow over time as opposed to a guaranteed decline.

It is pretty much impossible for a network serialized drama to not only decline / hold steady in the ratings as the gain no new viewers . Yet cable dramas gain viewers from year to year.

[marksman]

You do realize Awake has been cancelled. One has to hope there's at least some closure to the series. So even though you have a full season of shows saved up, you might net get satisfaction that the series will not leave you hanging

Yeah in worst case scenarios a show like smash was entirely filmed before airing. That puts the creators in a tricky place. As someone else mentioned the cable nets love to use the early renewal to instill confidence in a new show.

I do think networks need to stick with sitcoms and procedurals. I was enjoying Awake but when it got such bad ratings i slacked off. Probably the best network serialized show staying alive is Good Wife but it barely hangs on. I didn't even watch it until 1.5 seasons were over and I went to extraordinary measures to catch up, far beyond what I would do for a cable show.

[aadam101]

But if they made it possible to easily catch up their viewer numbers would likely grow over time as opposed to a guaranteed decline.

It is pretty much impossible for a network serialized drama to not only decline / hold steady in the ratings as the gain no new viewers . Yet cable dramas gain viewers from year to year.

I think that's just an excuse networks use to cancel things. Network shows have gained viewers in the past (see Cheers and Seinfeld). I realize it was a different time but cable networks are routinely breaking record highs while broadcast networks continue to break record lows.

Take a look at the season 4 premiere of Breaking Bad. It was the highest rated episode ever. That's very unlikely for a show in it's 4th season. It helps tremendously that the show is repeated in between seasons and is available on Netflix streaming. The show got a lot of good buzz and people had an easy ways to watch it. Network shows make you jump through hoops to watch back episodes.

[aadam101]

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/ross_rachel_the_rock_OmcHTplppRWzJSGs49GAhL/1

Here is an interesting story about NBC in the 90's under Littlefield. He just wrote a book about it.

[marksman]

I think that's just an excuse networks use to cancel things. Network shows have gained viewers in the past (see Cheers and Seinfeld). I realize it was a different time but cable networks are routinely breaking record highs while broadcast networks continue to break record lows.

Take a look at the season 4 premiere of Breaking Bad. It was the highest rated episode ever. That's very unlikely for a show in it's 4th season. It helps tremendously that the show is repeated in between seasons and is available on Netflix streaming. The show got a lot of good buzz and people had an easy ways to watch it. Network shows make you jump through hoops to watch back episodes.

Yeah I think Mad Men and Walking Dead also set series highs in their most recent seasons.

I didn't even watch Breaking bad until Season 3. I saw the first 2 seasons right before season 3 started. Mostly because AMC reran them and some from on-demand. I was able to catch up to the show and become a regular viewer. I have done this with all kinds of Cable shows. There only Network show I have done that with that was serialized in the last 5 plus years is Good Wife.

The proof is that serialized show can be managed to grow in the ratings. The major networks just choose not to do any of the things necessary to do that. Which does make me question why they bother to ever launch any serialized shows. They know they will have no chance of growing it by doing what they are doing. Or do they?

[marksman]

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/ross_rachel_the_rock_OmcHTplppRWzJSGs49GAhL/1

Here is an interesting story about NBC in the 90's under Littlefield. He just wrote a book about it.

It is interesting to read. I think part of the problem with the short show leash now has to do with the super short leash a lot of network executives are on. ABC and NBC have turned over lots of people. CBS not as much and Fox in the middle I suspect.

Think back a few years ago when Lloyd Braun and whats her name (no disrespect to her I am just blanking), took over ABC. They got fired before their new shows like Lost and Desperate Housewives hit the air. They become the number one network but the people who made it happen got fired before they ever got to reap the rewards of their actual work.

With the lag in the industry it is hard. I think Greenblatt has a relatively long leash but I feel like sometimes he sneaks some scissors out and intentionally cuts big chunks out of his leash to make it shorter. To me CBS is in a completely different business then Fox, ABC, NBC and if you want to count them CW. CBS has a specific business model with goals and objectives that are overall different than the other networks and they execute it fairly well. They also own half of CW which allows them to test things to see what they might not to do in the future.

Anyways back on point, I do think in the past execs got more time, even though they have always had a shortish leash. Part of it was with only three networks or three plus a small cable influence, you would likely have a handful of hit shows on every network. That is not the case now. There are no scripted shows on NBC, for example that would be a hit on CBS. In fact almost none of the shows have high enough ratings, scratch that, none of the NBC scripted shows have high enough ratings to even be on CBS.

[aadam101]

Yeah I think Mad Men and Walking Dead also set series highs in their most recent seasons.

I didn't even watch Breaking bad until Season 3. I saw the first 2 seasons right before season 3 started. Mostly because AMC reran them and some from on-demand. I was able to catch up to the show and become a regular viewer. I have done this with all kinds of Cable shows. There only Network show I have done that with that was serialized in the last 5 plus years is Good Wife.

The proof is that serialized show can be managed to grow in the ratings. The major networks just choose not to do any of the things necessary to do that. Which does make me question why they bother to ever launch any serialized shows. They know they will have no chance of growing it by doing what they are doing. Or do they?

I did the same thing with Breaking Bad. People on this forum couldn't stop talking about it and I finally gave in and watched it. I'm VERY glad I did. Most recently I discovered Community in the middle if season 3. It was VERY easy to watch old episodes of Breaking Bad. They aired them all the time and they were put on Netflix streaming very soon after I started watching.

Community on the other hand was nearly impossible to find on the cheap. I wasn't willing to pay per episode on a show I didn't even know if I was going to like. Since the networks only allow at most the last 5 episodes for free I had few cheap options other than bittorrent. I watched the first two and a half seasons and NBC didn't make a dime off me.

AMC got the benefit of me watching on TV and later on Netflix.

[marksman]

I want to add more about reading that article and Zucker ruining NBC. I really thought Zucker was going to do good at NBC but he did essentially destroy the network.

I think this discussion comes up when we talk about the networks solely focused on short term money issues and being results oriented as opposed to having a long term view and as Littlefield put it "marked by the belief that viewers exist to be manipulated rather than nourished."

Devdog pointed out that the average viewer only watches one out of every two to three episodes. So they run with this logic and make bad decisions. I guarantee you that same figure is not true for a show like Mad Men and was not true for a show like the Sopranos. I realize the advertisers are the real customers but that does not mean they need to trample on the viewers just because they are still making money.

Yes the majors are still making money but they are declining at a rate that guarantees their own failure unless something changes. I know of no successful business person who would be happy about the trend of major network tv and its inevitable crash into the ground.

The key for the networks is to keep the old school advertising relationships pouring in money for image advertising and other advertising where they have little idea of effectiveness. While there are still corporations willing to spend large chunks of their advertising budgets without knowing if it is effective or not, the networks will still be able to eek out profitability.

[aadam101]

This is kind of off topic but I had no idea the Seinfeld cast didn't get along with Heidi Swedberg. I've got to pick up this book.

The comment about Will and Grace was interesting also. NBC charged Debra Messing $225 because she took a prop? Are they insane? This woman made the networks MILLIONS of dollars. This is a very petty way to end a successful show.

[marksman]

This is kind of off topic but I had no idea the Seinfeld cast didn't get along with Heidi Swedberg. I've got to pick up this book.

The comment about Will and Grace was interesting also. NBC charged Debra Messing $225 because she took a prop? Are they insane? This woman made the networks MILLIONS of dollars. This is a very petty way to end a successful show.

Yeah I had not heard either of those. The Seinfeld one was good and I could only hope to see a Chevy chase demise like that but my hopes are dashed.

Some business people waste money, and some pinch the pennies too hard. No brainer to me to let Messing have the door as a gift. That is when you know you have bad operators making decisions up the change. That anyone was asked the question about what to do about the door and not laughing it off is crazy. That being said that might not have been Zucker and could have happened under any regime.

[aadam101]

Yeah I had not heard either of those. The Seinfeld one was good and I could only hope to see a Chevy chase demise like that but my hopes are dashed.

Some business people waste money, and some pinch the pennies too hard. No brainer to me to let Messing have the door as a gift. That is when you know you have bad operators making decisions up the change. That anyone was asked the question about what to do about the door and not laughing it off is crazy. That being said that might not have been Zucker and could have happened under any regime.

I had heard the Will and Grace one shortly after the show ended. I can't find any evidence of this but if I recall the network gave all four stars brand new cars as a "thank you" at the end of season 1. So to be so petty over a $200 prop is just dumb.

[Frylock]

What's amazing is how NBC keeps putting out awful shows on NBC, but on USA, they keep cranking out hits. Perhaps they should consider moving to more of a USA model. Shorter runs, and more shows. Clearly what they're doing now isn't working, so why not try something new.

[Steveknj]

I want to add more about reading that article and Zucker ruining NBC. I really thought Zucker was going to do good at NBC but he did essentially destroy the network.

I think this discussion comes up when we talk about the networks solely focused on short term money issues and being results oriented as opposed to having a long term view and as Littlefield put it "marked by the belief that viewers exist to be manipulated rather than nourished."

Devdog pointed out that the average viewer only watches one out of every two to three episodes. So they run with this logic and make bad decisions. I guarantee you that same figure is not true for a show like Mad Men and was not true for a show like the Sopranos. I realize the advertisers are the real customers but that does not mean they need to trample on the viewers just because they are still making money.

Yes the majors are still making money but they are declining at a rate that guarantees their own failure unless something changes. I know of no successful business person who would be happy about the trend of major network tv and its inevitable crash into the ground.

The key for the networks is to keep the old school advertising relationships pouring in money for image advertising and other advertising where they have little idea of effectiveness. While there are still corporations willing to spend large chunks of their advertising budgets without knowing if it is effective or not, the networks will still be able to eek out profitability.

Here's why I'm always willing to give cable shows a try, even if I have mild interest, while network shows I blow off if I'm not sure about it. With Cable, they repeat the shows often. USA Network might show Burn Notice four or five times a week. So if I have a conflict, I can still watch it (and if I were inclined to watch commercials, complete with commercials too). The networks? Not so easy (although we DO now get NBC and ABC on demand on DirecTV, albeit in glorious SD). So, especially with serialized dramas, if I miss one episode of say Awake, I'm screwed. I still say, that they should used their cable partners and run these shows again on cable. Sure, they may not make as much money on USA Network than they do on NBC, but at least they get a chance to get SOME eyeballs on the shows, and perhaps gain another audience. I know, there's all kinds of logistical reasons they can't do it consistently, but to me that's just another piece of the archaic puzzle that's been developed over 60 years that needs to change.

[Steveknj]

What's amazing is how NBC keeps putting out awful shows on NBC, but on USA, they keep cranking out hits. Perhaps they should consider moving to more of a USA model. Shorter runs, and more shows. Clearly what they're doing now isn't working, so why not try something new.

I watch most of what USA has to offer, and I'm more willing to give their new stuff a try. One, I don't think they will bail on a show I like in the middle of a season, and second, like I mentioned, I get multiple opportunities to watch, so if there's a conflict with other shows, I just don't blow it off, I record it later.

[DevdogAZ]

What's amazing is how NBC keeps putting out awful shows on NBC, but on USA, they keep cranking out hits. Perhaps they should consider moving to more of a USA model. Shorter runs, and more shows. Clearly what they're doing now isn't working, so why not try something new.

Interesting observation. CBS is the #1 broadcast network and try clearly have a pattern that they follow (crime procedural dramas). USA is the #1 cable network, and they also have a pattern (lighthearted buddy dramas with a minor sprinkling of serialization). Maybe NBC needs to figure out something like that and start churning them out.

[Peter000]

if I miss one episode of say Awake, I'm screwed.
I see your point, but feel that Awake is a poor choice of an example. I've been watching Awake only sporadically and don't feel like I miss much if I skip three episodes.

There aren't many "serialized" shows I've seen these days that have to be seen every week.