-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Television Arrested Development
- Thread starter shannabanana
- Start date
Mysticalis
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2000
- Messages
- 6,544
michael said:
I'm wouldn't be surprised if they did just that. This is Fox we're talking about, after all. They wouldn't know a good show if it bit 'em in the ass.
WacoWas AnAccident
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,046
It's a shame. But come on, we all knew this one was too good to last. GOB's chicken dance, I'll miss you.
FunkyAlfonzo
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,650
jesus - just when I thought that american's could do really good comedy, it turns out that none actually watches it!
That's bullshit, and you should know it. No one ever watched the show. After it won an emmy people actually watched it less. It's just another unfortunate case of a great show that didn't make it a la Freaks and Geeks.
In a way, the show wasn't meant to last. The way it was structured was very confusing to those who had never seen it. My friends and I loved it but that was also because we started watching it from day one. Extraordinarily intelligent and with-it people who came in in the middle of say, season two, oftentimes found it difficult to pick up what the hell was going on.
Fox knew it had a "good" show on its hands. Nobody watched it. I was surprised it got picked up for a second and third season.
In a way, the show wasn't meant to last. The way it was structured was very confusing to those who had never seen it. My friends and I loved it but that was also because we started watching it from day one. Extraordinarily intelligent and with-it people who came in in the middle of say, season two, oftentimes found it difficult to pick up what the hell was going on.
Fox knew it had a "good" show on its hands. Nobody watched it. I was surprised it got picked up for a second and third season.
michael
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2001
- Messages
- 19,843
it's not bullshit, and you should know it. fox made no effort to have it succeed and it didn't. while i am angry about this i am hardly surprised - as you can see i was surprised in september of last year it lasted as long as it did.
you can't tell me that it's original timeslot in with the simpsons and the family guy on sunday wouldn't have gauranteed the show more viewers than relegating it to monday night, especially with how often they knew it would get tossed in favor of baseball playoffs, and even on the open mondays replacing it with reruns of the dumbest show to be televised in recent history.
you can't tell me that it's original timeslot in with the simpsons and the family guy on sunday wouldn't have gauranteed the show more viewers than relegating it to monday night, especially with how often they knew it would get tossed in favor of baseball playoffs, and even on the open mondays replacing it with reruns of the dumbest show to be televised in recent history.
There wasn't anyone watching it in its original timeslot.
You can blame it on Fox all you want, and I'm not saying they couldn't have done more, but the public ultimately determines whether or not a show is going to be successful. Seinfeld is the perfect example of a show that was moved around constantly by the network and ultimately caught on.
So letting the masses off the hook by laying the blame entirely on Fox is simple-minded.
AND the show's frenetic pacing and inside joke structure ultimately doomed it. Even though that is what made it so exciting for regular viewers, people channel surfing just didn't get it.
I love the show, but I'm not that upset. I like the idea of shows only being on for a couple of seasons and then saying goodbye. It was lucky it was on for three seasons. Shows almost inevitably falter (except Seinfeld). Look at the Simpsons. It sucks now.
You can blame it on Fox all you want, and I'm not saying they couldn't have done more, but the public ultimately determines whether or not a show is going to be successful. Seinfeld is the perfect example of a show that was moved around constantly by the network and ultimately caught on.
So letting the masses off the hook by laying the blame entirely on Fox is simple-minded.
AND the show's frenetic pacing and inside joke structure ultimately doomed it. Even though that is what made it so exciting for regular viewers, people channel surfing just didn't get it.
I love the show, but I'm not that upset. I like the idea of shows only being on for a couple of seasons and then saying goodbye. It was lucky it was on for three seasons. Shows almost inevitably falter (except Seinfeld). Look at the Simpsons. It sucks now.
Last edited:
Finder
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
- Messages
- 32,361
I think it's kind of backwards to consider three seasons to be too little for a show. Shows here in the States run far too long and end up becoming terrible before they finish their run, with a few exceptions aside.
Just look at the Office. Two seasons, two special episodes, each one genius. Sometimes there is no reason to drag a good thing out and end up ruining it. The Simpsons is a perfect example, you have eight seasons of great show, two or three more of "ok" show, and then a completely shell of it's former greatness running on into infinity and ruining the reputation it used to have by becoming a parody of itself.
Just look at the Office. Two seasons, two special episodes, each one genius. Sometimes there is no reason to drag a good thing out and end up ruining it. The Simpsons is a perfect example, you have eight seasons of great show, two or three more of "ok" show, and then a completely shell of it's former greatness running on into infinity and ruining the reputation it used to have by becoming a parody of itself.
Banquo
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 6, 1999
- Messages
- 5,701
There used to be longer periods to try and find success with a lot of things in the entertainment industry, whether it was television shows, popular music acts, or stage productions. Now there's this put-out or get-out attitude that demands instant ratings gratification and economic success. Due to the nature of the material, it probably takes the average person an episode or two to get used to Arrested Development, whereas the average sitcom is nothing but nonstop setups and punchlines. People are used to loving or hating something immediately, and when they see a television show which expects a little more from its audience they get turned off -- ESPECIALLY when any sense of pattern or habit is interfered with by a network who constantly changes the show's timeslots.
bow-viper1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 681
I've watched it on and off from the beginning, I absolutely love this show. I love their style of comedy.
I agree with your comments as well, Banquo. I don't think that the material is for everyone, and a lot of people I know just don't get it.
I agree with your comments as well, Banquo. I don't think that the material is for everyone, and a lot of people I know just don't get it.
Rollin_to_Oakenfold
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 858
I can't say that I am surprised that they've gone ahead and canceled it again. They are not happy with just the cult following. They figured that the publicity of an internet "petition" to bring it back would bring them more viewers and when it didn't, they dumped the project.
I think its one of the funniest shows on television, but there is a drastic separation of those who like it and those who hate it. Apparently too much for Fox.
I think its one of the funniest shows on television, but there is a drastic separation of those who like it and those who hate it. Apparently too much for Fox.
psychetool
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
This show is spectacular. 
It sucks that it hasn't picked up more then a cult following, but there is a lot of adult humor in there that might not be suitable for little kids. Then again it might just go right over their heads.
I don't know, i'll defintily be pirating the DVDs at the very least. :D
It sucks that it hasn't picked up more then a cult following, but there is a lot of adult humor in there that might not be suitable for little kids. Then again it might just go right over their heads.I don't know, i'll defintily be pirating the DVDs at the very least. :D
Banquo
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 6, 1999
- Messages
- 5,701
Die-Hard 'Arrested Development' Fans Already Feeling Sting of Loss
You couldn't call it unexpected.
This edition of the TV 101 Q & A got a late rush of letters all about the alleged cancellation of the best sitcom on television -- in fact, one of the best series period -- "Arrested Development" on Fox. (Alleged? Yes, more on that later.) Many of the letters were from die-hard fans -- their concerns cobbled together in the coming questions -- and most of them knew that "Arrested Development" was one of my favorite shows and that I have been a longtime ardent champion of the series. Therefore, kind readers that they are, they were concerned about me. (I know -- a rare emotion.) So, to answer one of the more common and personal queries is easy.
Q: Did Fox just really cancel "Arrested Development"? Say it ain't so!
A: Well, technically, it's not so. Fox will air the first 13 episodes, but it decided last week not to pick up the "back nine," as they say in the business. That's different from being canceled. (There was some confusion earlier as to whether Fox had ever promised a full 22 episodes to "AD." It hadn't. The network waited to see if the ratings were good before committing to the back nine. The ratings were not good, settling in at roughly 4 million viewers compared with about 6 million, on average, the last season. Either year you measure it, not good.
Now, when a network cuts, or doesn't extend, your season order, that's usually a terrible sign. That's usually death. But remember, "AD" was cut from 22 to 18 last year and still returned.
Q: How could this happen? Doesn't Fox care about a show that has won Emmys?
A: It happened primarily because "Arrested Development" and freshman sitcom "Kitchen Confidential" -- also benched -- were dragging down the ratings for what amounts to the network's only bright spot, "Prison Break." Fox wanted to keep "Prison Break" surging ahead, and the lead-in hour with those two comedies was, essentially, costing it viewers.
Now, let's get serious here for a minute as it concerns Fox's alibi. The fact is, Fox has never known what to do with "Arrested Development," which has won six Emmys, including outstanding comedy. On-air promotions for the series have been sporadic at best and incompetent, never selling the humor of the series. The network made an argument that switching "AD" off Sunday nights and finding a "companion" series for it was a lifesaving plan. Well, we can see how that turned out: two deaths, as it appears "Kitchen Confidential" is doomed as well. You can argue all night whether "Kitchen," which was getting funnier, was a good fit or not. But there's no argument that slotting them both on Monday nights was a disaster. A terrible decision.
On top of that, Fox shouldn't kid itself about helping "Prison Break" or any of its other freshman series, all faring from bad to mediocre in the ratings. This was not a good development season for Fox, and none of these shows are likely to break out. Besides, at best, "Prison Break" is a one-season wonder. In a season of disappointment, why scuttle one of your best quality series? Fox is in no shape to be discarding Emmy winners. One look at its history of Emmy winners (slim) should prove that.
Q: Can anything be done to save the show?
A: Yeah, find some Nielsen friends and start watching when the show returns to finish its run Dec. 5.
Other than that, not much. But listen, there are people inside Fox who adamantly believe (perhaps foolishly) that a miracle could happen. And here's the scenario for that: No freshman series is a bona fide hit, and shows like "Stacked" are tanking. Come May, when Entertainment President Peter Ligouri assembles his executives and puts the pieces together for next season's schedule, he just may look down the bench at "Arrested Development" and decide to keep it as a gem that can be shifted to a better night (DVD sales and Emmy lustre helping to offset the dire ratings).
Ligouri, former head of FX, should look to his former head of programming there, Kevin Reilly, who is currently in charge at NBC. Reilly recently renewed "The Office," a low-rated, critically-acclaimed series that bleeds millions of viewers after "My Name Is Earl." Why renew it? Because Reilly knows "The Office" is a great show, despite not finding a massive audience. Ligouri, too, loves "Arrested Development" and should stick with his gut on this one. Why? Because Fox, outside of animated series, hasn't launched a good sitcom in ages.
Then again, Ligouri and Fox have apparently given approval for creator and executive producer Mitch Hurwitz to shop the series elsewhere. Which brings up the most frequently asked question:
Q: What are the chances someone else will pick up the series and save it?
A: Not good. "Arrested Development" would be a lovely addition to HBO, but the pay cable channel has said it will take no one's "sloppy seconds." Given the poor ratings and expensive per-episode price tag, no network or basic cable channel is likely to make a play for it. However, there is an intriguing rumor of a suitor: Showtime.
This idea actually makes sense. Showtime has been making great strides in its programming department, but the audience is still lacking. A name series that might prompt die-hard fans (are there any other kind left for "AD"?) to subscribe would be an enticing option. The idea is that "AD" might pair well with "Weeds." And no matter how you get it -- by developing it yourself or snatching it fully built off the discard pile -- a great series is a great series, period.
Whatever happens -- and though there's some lingering resentment on how the series was handled -- Fox should get some credit. The network believed in "Arrested Development" and stuck with it through lean times. Loyal fans have two nice DVD packages to choose from and will get, in the not too distant future, a 13-episode third season box.
If this is the end, it was a brilliant run of finely crafted hilarity. The writing was the best that television has seen and the acting, though ridiculously ignored by Emmy voters, was both inspired and passionately great. The cast clearly believed in the material and had a blast delivering it to the masses.
Well, a part of the masses, anyway.
And let's make this clear: Genius has no relationship whatsoever to popularity.
Give me 13 episodes of "Arrested Development" over five years of soul-sucking lameness like "According to Jim" any day.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/14/DDG4NFMUAI1.DTL
You couldn't call it unexpected.
This edition of the TV 101 Q & A got a late rush of letters all about the alleged cancellation of the best sitcom on television -- in fact, one of the best series period -- "Arrested Development" on Fox. (Alleged? Yes, more on that later.) Many of the letters were from die-hard fans -- their concerns cobbled together in the coming questions -- and most of them knew that "Arrested Development" was one of my favorite shows and that I have been a longtime ardent champion of the series. Therefore, kind readers that they are, they were concerned about me. (I know -- a rare emotion.) So, to answer one of the more common and personal queries is easy.
Q: Did Fox just really cancel "Arrested Development"? Say it ain't so!
A: Well, technically, it's not so. Fox will air the first 13 episodes, but it decided last week not to pick up the "back nine," as they say in the business. That's different from being canceled. (There was some confusion earlier as to whether Fox had ever promised a full 22 episodes to "AD." It hadn't. The network waited to see if the ratings were good before committing to the back nine. The ratings were not good, settling in at roughly 4 million viewers compared with about 6 million, on average, the last season. Either year you measure it, not good.
Now, when a network cuts, or doesn't extend, your season order, that's usually a terrible sign. That's usually death. But remember, "AD" was cut from 22 to 18 last year and still returned.
Q: How could this happen? Doesn't Fox care about a show that has won Emmys?
A: It happened primarily because "Arrested Development" and freshman sitcom "Kitchen Confidential" -- also benched -- were dragging down the ratings for what amounts to the network's only bright spot, "Prison Break." Fox wanted to keep "Prison Break" surging ahead, and the lead-in hour with those two comedies was, essentially, costing it viewers.
Now, let's get serious here for a minute as it concerns Fox's alibi. The fact is, Fox has never known what to do with "Arrested Development," which has won six Emmys, including outstanding comedy. On-air promotions for the series have been sporadic at best and incompetent, never selling the humor of the series. The network made an argument that switching "AD" off Sunday nights and finding a "companion" series for it was a lifesaving plan. Well, we can see how that turned out: two deaths, as it appears "Kitchen Confidential" is doomed as well. You can argue all night whether "Kitchen," which was getting funnier, was a good fit or not. But there's no argument that slotting them both on Monday nights was a disaster. A terrible decision.
On top of that, Fox shouldn't kid itself about helping "Prison Break" or any of its other freshman series, all faring from bad to mediocre in the ratings. This was not a good development season for Fox, and none of these shows are likely to break out. Besides, at best, "Prison Break" is a one-season wonder. In a season of disappointment, why scuttle one of your best quality series? Fox is in no shape to be discarding Emmy winners. One look at its history of Emmy winners (slim) should prove that.
Q: Can anything be done to save the show?
A: Yeah, find some Nielsen friends and start watching when the show returns to finish its run Dec. 5.
Other than that, not much. But listen, there are people inside Fox who adamantly believe (perhaps foolishly) that a miracle could happen. And here's the scenario for that: No freshman series is a bona fide hit, and shows like "Stacked" are tanking. Come May, when Entertainment President Peter Ligouri assembles his executives and puts the pieces together for next season's schedule, he just may look down the bench at "Arrested Development" and decide to keep it as a gem that can be shifted to a better night (DVD sales and Emmy lustre helping to offset the dire ratings).
Ligouri, former head of FX, should look to his former head of programming there, Kevin Reilly, who is currently in charge at NBC. Reilly recently renewed "The Office," a low-rated, critically-acclaimed series that bleeds millions of viewers after "My Name Is Earl." Why renew it? Because Reilly knows "The Office" is a great show, despite not finding a massive audience. Ligouri, too, loves "Arrested Development" and should stick with his gut on this one. Why? Because Fox, outside of animated series, hasn't launched a good sitcom in ages.
Then again, Ligouri and Fox have apparently given approval for creator and executive producer Mitch Hurwitz to shop the series elsewhere. Which brings up the most frequently asked question:
Q: What are the chances someone else will pick up the series and save it?
A: Not good. "Arrested Development" would be a lovely addition to HBO, but the pay cable channel has said it will take no one's "sloppy seconds." Given the poor ratings and expensive per-episode price tag, no network or basic cable channel is likely to make a play for it. However, there is an intriguing rumor of a suitor: Showtime.
This idea actually makes sense. Showtime has been making great strides in its programming department, but the audience is still lacking. A name series that might prompt die-hard fans (are there any other kind left for "AD"?) to subscribe would be an enticing option. The idea is that "AD" might pair well with "Weeds." And no matter how you get it -- by developing it yourself or snatching it fully built off the discard pile -- a great series is a great series, period.
Whatever happens -- and though there's some lingering resentment on how the series was handled -- Fox should get some credit. The network believed in "Arrested Development" and stuck with it through lean times. Loyal fans have two nice DVD packages to choose from and will get, in the not too distant future, a 13-episode third season box.
If this is the end, it was a brilliant run of finely crafted hilarity. The writing was the best that television has seen and the acting, though ridiculously ignored by Emmy voters, was both inspired and passionately great. The cast clearly believed in the material and had a blast delivering it to the masses.
Well, a part of the masses, anyway.
And let's make this clear: Genius has no relationship whatsoever to popularity.
Give me 13 episodes of "Arrested Development" over five years of soul-sucking lameness like "According to Jim" any day.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/14/DDG4NFMUAI1.DTL
psychetool
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
So arrested developement got axed to make way for more.... PRISON BREAK ? Shoot me now.
bow-viper1
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2005
- Messages
- 681
Amen, as a fuck you to Fox.[/triestoactlikehewouldn'thavedoneitanyway]psychetool said:
