Slashdot Mirror
What Has Fox Got Against Its Own Sci-Fi Shows?
brumgrunt writes "Dollhouse. The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Fringe. Three science fiction shows that Fox commissioned, put on the air, and — in the case of at least one of them — has won rave reviews. But why does it seem that Fox is trying to kill some of its own shows with crazy scheduling decisions? How can Fringe survive after being pulled for two months, and what hope is there for Sarah Connor and Dollhouse on a Friday night?"
Fox is NOTORIOUS for not sticking with their series (and have been for at least 15 years now). I can name a dozens of great shows just off the top of my head that they've abandoned over the years (usually after moving them around, not promoting them, etc.). In the new millenium, they've gotten even worse. They will cancel series now before they even finish a full season, even if they have the season already "in the can" (Firefly and Wonderfalls are two prime examples). Basically, if you agree to do a show for Fox, you better go into it knowing that it's probably not going to last long (count yourself lucky if they don't pull the plug after just a few episodes have aired).
I once heard an explanation of why networks do this sort of thing. There is a lot of executive turnover at networks, and when a new programming exec comes in, the first thing he wants to do it to advance his own projects. You see, on his own pet projects, he gets to take full credit for them if they succeed. But if one of his predecessor's pet projects succeeds, he doesn't get to take any credit for it. That means that incoming execs have every motivation to kill off all their predecessor's projects (no matter how sucessful they may be) to make room for their own. So they will often take a show that is successful and start fucking around with it, just so they can justify cancelling it. You take your predecessor's big show, move it around to a shitty night, force a bunch of stupid "notes" down the show-runner's throat ("Hey, can you bring in a sassy robot? How about a cute, wise-cracking kid?"), and then don't promote it at all. Bingo! The show's ratings tank, and you get to go before the studio president and say "Gee, look's like my predecessor's show didn't have any legs. Now let me tell you about *MY* great new show..."
Judging by how much this happens at Fox, apparently they have a *LOT* of turnover.
Oh, and a special R.I.P. to my beloved "Strange Luck," cancelled after just 17 episodes.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
With DVR's becoming more and more popular, the time that a show airs is less and less important. Perhaps the execs realize this and are trying to work it to their advantage. Sometimes you need to take some risks to move forward.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
...is thank god BSG is on Sci-Fi channel and not Fox. Otherwise we'd likely have had only one season of it.
There is a lot of executive turnover at networks, and when a new programming exec comes in, the first thing he wants to do it to advance his own projects.
That does not suffice for an explanation. You see, they must notice that the longer you leave a show in a solid time slot the more your established viewership watches it. Case in point: Futurama. I liked the show but I never knew when it was on so I often missed it when it was on the air. They moved it around to death!
... but I'm not inclined to believe Fox has savvy executives in this respect. For all I know, they're moving around shows based on the number of complaints that are filed with the FCC from conservative Christian groups.
Even if they had put it on Saturday at 2pm I would have known when to watch it. Adult Swim is much the same--bad time slot but I know when it's on so I always watch it. Their shows get moved around way too much and as a result, it's harder for me to grow attached to any one show in a solid time slot.
And don't tell me Fox doesn't know this, their syndication of The Simpson all through high school at 5 & 5:30 on weekdays was very popular. No, I attribute this to just sheer stupidity--maybe even the logic that if they move it around they will collect more viewers who normally don't watch the regular time slots.
You would think thorough statistics would solve this problem
I heard the Futurama folks were looking at doing another TV slot but were just too jaded from their Fox experience to wanna start it again. I think they should get into their contract a solid time slot on a day to ensure success. I wouldn't blame them if they opted to go the straight to DVD route forever or try to work something out with Comedy Central.
My work here is dung.
I tried watching Fringe. It was a crappy low-rent X-files ripoff with little redeaming value.
I tried watching Dollhouse. It was a crappy creepy low-rent show about mind-wiped prostitutes...
Test your net with Netalyzr
And just to clarify, that should be longest running US-based Sci-Fi show in history. Dr. Who has the world record.
Firefly's handling was a travesty. Great show that was scheduled to death.
But Dollhouse sucks on its own. It's Fantasy Island with anorexic girls.
It almost seems like fox thinks that nerds are more likely not to have plans on Friday night than other groups. Either that or maybe they think nerds are more likely to have DVRs? What are they thinking?
I really enjoyed the firefly series after purchasing it on DVD, and watching the episodes in order. FOX seemed to do everything in their power to kill this show..
1. Friday night scheduling.
2. Airing the episodes out of order.. I mean HELLO ?? The order was 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 1; with 11 â" 13 unaired
The wikipedia entry for Firefly contains more detailed criticism of Fox for their treatment of this series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Firefly_episodes
Fox is definitely the last place you want to try out a new series. It's hard to start watching a new series on their network, knowing their track record for killing off anything that might be halfway decent.. Why bother getting interested in a show that won't be around tomorrow ?
far...out
Wow, that's some reception. I didn't realize you got Fox on your planet.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Fox did the same Episode Shuffle with Dollhouse that was done with Firefly. I heard a critic say that the Bow Hunter episode was originally episode 6, and some of the plot had to be cut out because it involved stuff that hadn't occured yet being the second episode. Also, the very beginning of the series, the motorcycle sequence, was a complete addition by the executives at fox.
/rant
But yes, Dollhouse is no Firefly, due to Dr. Dusku's Horrible acting ability, and the fact that the only real "character" is the programmer guy. A blank slate is not a character.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
The same thing happened in 1979 with Battlestar Galactica. The network green lighted the show. Heavily promoted it and it was doing well. The demographics were great. Show with the most college graduates watching had the under 35 crowd going for it. So why did it have to die?
In a word, production costs. An hour of Galactica could cost 1 million dollars which would bring in 2 million dollars. Thus a 1 million dollar profit. On the other hand 30 minutes of Happy Days and 30 minutes of Mork and Mindy would cost the network a total of $250,000. But it would bring in 2.5 million.
So do the math. Decent sci-fi show 1 dollar out for every dollar in. Cheap but good rated comedy gives us 2.25 dollars out for every dollar in.
The network starts looking at that time slot and sees that it can put in 2 sitcoms, or a Law and Order, or a CSI and make twice as much money. At that point the show has to die.
In the case of classic Glactica they put the show in hiatus. Then brought it back without advertising, they changed what time it was on. They changed what night it was on. The fans were to loyal. They would hunt the show out and find it each time. The ratings were not dropping fast enough. They had to convert the show into "Galictica 1981" (shudder) to finally kill the thing.
As with most business decisions. Follow the money.
vi +
Yep, fox and other networks do really stupid shit such as cancel good shows and continue running garbage such as Fear Factor and American Idiot.
My wife and I enjoyed viewing the Dresden Files and Moonlight. I wasn't hip to Firefly until after it was canceled, but think it was better than most of the garbage of the airwaves that continues to run for what seems like decades.
Just the other day I was walking through a job site cafeteria and observing individuals viewing repeats of some 10 season long retarded sitcom on fox. The jokes weren't funny, and the canned laughter sounded stupid. Those doing the viewing looked like zombies focused on the green slime coming from the screen. I had the thought that the producers of most shows like this must think the viewing population are morons needing to be shown, by canned laughter, what constitutes entertainment.
If it weren't for the DVR I would sell the flat screen and get a life. Validation of the prose: "Watching TV is the same as giving up."
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
I couldn't agree with you more about the Firefly movie. Joss Whedon seems to be of two minds. There is the guy who can write compelling characters and pretty clever dialogue (like his adult crews in Alien Resurrection/Firefly, and much of the banter between them), and then there is the lame teeny-soap-opera guy who keeps falling back on silly cliches like "90-lb anorexic girl who KICKS SOME ASS!" I get the sense of a guy who WANTS to write adult television and movies, but just can't seem to get past his awkward teenage years. He can't seem to decide if he wants to write for Battlestar Galactica or Hannah Montana.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Fox doesn't hate sci-fi. Fox hates paying for sci-fi. Sci-fi is expensive.
Fox used to ditch any show after a season if it wasn't an instant hit.
Then they realized they could sell DVDs of the shows at a profit.
It's better to have more profit than not. So Fox has started canceling shows after a season or two unless they're raving hits instantly.
They sell the DVDs and make a profit. It doesn't matter if we love the show. If America doesn't love it, it's gone.
The Sci-fi channel decided in the past 2 years to skip well written content in favor of B movies. They figure if it's got aliens and monsters, people will watch. Sci-fi channel thinks people are in it for the aliens and monsters, not the story or production value or plausibility.
and for all you fans of MST3K, it was not sci-fi. It was comedy. Get over yourselves.
They're using their grammar skills there.
People are under the mistaken impression that Fox is an entertainment company producing shows as a product for viewers who are their customers. Incorrect.
Fox is a media company, and their product is viewers, which they sell to advertisers, their actual customers. Apply this knowledge to "news" channels, etc... and you'll understand a lot.
That business model means that any actual quality entertainment is a fluke. Especially if it's something deemed such quality that a small demographic really enjoys it... that is never their goal. Understanding this, one can look for quality entertainment in books, or films and shows *after* they aired and were reviewed well, despite the system.
The interesting question is not "why does Fox screw up at something outside of their goals." The interesting question is "what method of funding and creating shows as quality entertainment might be sustainable as a business that we could flock to?" Distributed digital patronage or something? Maybe I should submit that as an Ask Slashdot.