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?"

15 of 753 comments (clear)

  1. Duh, what's new? They're Fox by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Blinocac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems this would be a good opportunity for some bright young exec to step up and run with some succesful shows that are already in place, and get himself some recognition as the guy who didn't kill the good shows. But then, we don't have time for rational solutions.

    2. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do we have time to make a batch of Torgo's Executive Powder?

    3. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by PeterP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of the first Family Guy episode after they got cancelled:

      Peter: Everybody, I've got bad news. We've been cancelled.
      Lois: Oh, no! Peter, how could they do that?
      Peter: Well, unfortunately, Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We've just got to accept the fact that Fox has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonderfalls, Fastlane, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Skin, Girls Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, FreakyLinks, Wanda at Large, Costello, The Lone Gunmen, A Minute With Stan Hooper, Normal, Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddie, The $treet, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Luis and Greg the Bunny.
      Lois: Is there no hope?
      Peter: Well, I suppose if all those shows go down the tubes, we might have a shot.

    4. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by jonas_haase · · Score: 5, Funny

      whooosh

      --
      bad spellers of the world UNTIE
    5. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fox is like Circuit City. They cut their good stuff and bring in new and inexperienced stuff because it's cheaper. Every time a show becomes more popular, with each renewal, writers, actors and others negotiate for higher pay. Fox does not look for viewer loyalty and clearly does not see this as important to their bottom line. They, instead, seem to be focused on short-term gains and returns. They are the most capitalistic of the networks and the results speak for themselves.

      It doesn't matter to them that viewers who care about the long term enjoyment of a series will often avoid getting hooked into a show because it is run by Fox as there are plenty of people who are willing to watch and their numbers are sufficient and their advertisers don't seem to care either, which leads me to the next point. If you would like to teach Fox to behave and keep their best series, you have to complain to the ADVERTISERS, not to Fox. Fox will not listen to viewers -- they are short-sighted to the point that they take viewers for granted.

    6. Re:Duh, what's new? They're Fox by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fox, cancelling more sci-fi? Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

      --
      Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
  2. And Futurama by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    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 ... 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.

    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.
    1. Re:And Futurama by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They moved it around to death!"

      And they wonder why people P2P TV episodes.

      If it's easier to look for a torrent, and download it than to just sit on a couch and watch your favorite show, then the TV people are doing something wrong.

      Maybe Fox pays less to Futurama (and any other show) for the first X episodes, then they start having to pay more? If that's the case then that might explain why they'll keep trying to churn shows.

      But on the flipside, most US TV series don't appear to really have "proper" endings, unlike many Japanese anime. So not sure how that works out.

      Maybe if Fox wants churn, they should start encouraging TV shows that end, and end properly as part of the arc, rather than something thrown together.

      --
    2. Re:And Futurama by dcollins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You would think thorough statistics would solve this problem ...

      Here's my experience with statistics in a corporate environment.

      YOU: Sir, our team has completed our month-long analysis of the economic data. We've done preliminary data analysis, removed outliers, run a Pearson error test, t-interval hypothesis tests, and a Chi-square analysis. The confidence interval is (95%: 45.1 to 52.8) and you can see that in contradiction to your earlier theory, our findings are very strongly correlated, with P-value 0.0026.

      EXECUTIVE: Yeah, fuck off.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  3. Duh, they're CRAP... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Duh, they're CRAP... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, c'mon. Fringe is fun, silly fluff. Walter (Peter's crazy dad) is one of the best characters to come along in a while. People need to lighten up. You read message boards about genre shows, and everyone is so *serious* about it all, and act like they have been personally insulted if something doesn't appeal to them.

      creepy low-rent show about mind-wiped prostitutes

      You say that like it's a bad thing. ;-) I haven't watched it yet, so I can't say.

  4. Re: Firefly by brufar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  5. It is the cost by fwarren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  6. Re:Dollhouse is no Firefly by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.