What is wrong with American TV shows?

Remove all ads!

Ok, this is not a subject for the Alleys so relax. Now that I got this out of the way I'd like to get something out of my chest. I know about the economics and the reasons that are given to fans but why do American networks keep producing shows to cancel them only after a season or (in some rare cases) two?

It's such a let down and you can safely take bets that the more original and controversial a show is, the less likely it is to survive for another season. There used to be a time when TV shows were a second rate form of entertainment but it is no longer the case and many screen actors get parts in TV shows without compromising their career.

Don't get me wrong, it's not necessarily a bad thing for a show to end. I loved the X Files but the last season was an embarassment. I guess it's hard to keep up good writing and original ideas going on for years on end but still, there are so many shows that don't even get a proper ending (and even sometimes no ending at all).

I still mourn the fact that Deadwood never reached any ending. It got to a climax and season three ended with so many loose ends it was just frustrating. I look at the DVD boxsets and it is a constant reminder that we'll never get to know the end of that story.

At least Arrested Development's conclusion was satisfactory even if season 3 was rushed and way too short.

What about Life? I don't watch many cop shows these days but found the premise so compelling that it got me hooked. Two seasons? You've got to be kidding me...

I got really excited about Kings because I totally could see Ian McShane playing a modern day king but I've seen that the show had already been cancelled after one season. Is there even an ending to that story?

Six Degrees? That was really pure unadulterated awesomeness but it never got a real ending.

That list could go on for ever...

I did a quick search on the internet and the result was appalling: "85 Series from the 2008 – 2009 Season that are Cancelled or Ending"

Are we to adapt and accept these for what they are, i.e. unfinished products? Or are we to wait and see if they reach a point where we can be at ease and start watching knowing we'll get a full story with a conclusive ending. In other words can we watch How I Met Your Mother knowing that we'll get to a point where Ted will actually meet the aforementioned mother? Ok, I'm kidding (hopefully) about HIMYM but still, you get my point.

I feel like digging up my Magnum P.I. and The A team DVDs or watching Quantum Leap again. Speaking of which, the storyline in Enterprise started to get really messy but why, oh why, did it have to end like it did? The Force be praised, I'm not a trekkie so I can live with it, but why?!

Why even bother making new shows? Why not make fewer shows that would actually get to a conclusive ending? I get the economics, the target demographics, the whole making money part and so on but that is just frustrating.

[/end unnecessary long rant]

 

Well, basically the intention at the beginnning is to keep making them. Noone wants the show to end. The problem is that it's only after they're finished screening the series that they know whether it's a success or not (still a success for something in series two or three). If the ratings for the season just gone show that the next season is going to make a loss it's kinda hard to lambast the tv companies for cancelling.

Making series that only run for two seasons or so might sound like a good idea but the networks don't like it. The main risk is getting the first series good and accepted by the audience, you're making things an awful lot more difficult if you're constantly having to come up with and market new shows. The other major problem is selling on the show to be rerun for evermore all around the world, like Friends or Frasier. I remember reading that you need at least four or five series before you can do this so that's a massive incentive to try and keep things going.

It's definitely noticeable on this side of the pond that there are much more tv series that are run with a definite conclusion and limited lifespan in mind. In most cases it's because those involved want to keep moving on in their career and want to avoid hanging around long enough for the show to go bad. I suppose there's less at stake financially as well of course. This does create a trade off I think. You're left with a tv show where every episode is a classic but the number of episodes is tiny. I was watching the American Office last night with my brother and he kept moaning that it wasn't a patch on the original. But there are 127 epsidoes of the US. The English has only 14, including Christmas specials. Would you prefer Deadwood to have one season with and ending or three seasons with no ending?

 

It seems to me that you are right about this difference. I'm thinking about Blackpool or Neverwhere for instance, there were only 6 episodes in both cases iirc. Even Coupling which is the closest thing there is to Friends this side of the pool didn't have many episodes compared to most American shows. Even The Good Life or Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em fall in this category despite being timeless classics. It's the same with more recent shows like The Worst Week of My Life.

An exception would have to be made for Doctor Who (and perhaps Only Fools and Horses). I'm not taking into account soaps of course.

Anyway, to answer your question I must say that I'd rather have one well made season with a conclusive ending than a three seasons show that collapses like a soufflé at the very end. There are few things more depressing than watching a soufflé that looked so magnificent when it first got out of the oven ending up falling short of one's expectations like this.

 

AH! That was one of my favorite shows over the past few years! I was so pissed when they canceled it... and replaced it with more reality TV.

The general public doesn't like original shows.

Fox is the worst culprit of canceling good shows. They have some great ones that are quite original, but they get canceled if the ratings aren't as high as American Idol. And if they find something that works (like House) they keep it running forever without changing it at all because the mass of American viewers don't give a crap if it hasn't changed in 6 years - they will eat it up. Hence the success of movies like Transformers 2 - there is nothing redeeming about that pile of horse manure, but people will shell out the money for the big explosions.

 

Shouldn't part of the blame also lie on the writers and how they've been keeping up with the show's impact? For some shows that turned bad even before the ratings dropped, at least (like Heroes I think). I watch tv series a lot, mostly during my free time though I usually don't get to watch all the episodes. Sometimes I watch marathons, especially during the summer. I've seen my share of shows that didn't make it to a second or third season.

I really liked House MD, but they should have ended that long ago. I haven't seen all the episodes but even I have noticed that a lot of the episodes have become formulaic. It reminds me a lot of Sabrina, which was great for several years.

 

I believe it also has to do with the fact that America itself is large enough so that any show will get an audience but unfortunately only a few will get the ratings or the following to compete with the programs Saber referred to.

It seems that when they find something that works they keep exploiting the lode until it runs out and even after it has run out.

Saber is complaining about Transformers 2 but I think that the sheer number of remakes of old series and old movies is a clear indication that originality is not what the networks want for their shows. When I think about it that way then I'm glad they haven't made a remake of Parker Lewis Can't Lose yet (after the remake of Knight Rider nothing can surprise me anymore as far as TV series are concerned).

Seriously when you come to realize how every idea gets recylced you have to wonder how it is even possible that we actually get to see one season of oddball TV shows like The Knights of Prosperity for instance.

I'm not familiar with House as I never got a chance to watch more than bits of it (although I intend to as Hugh Laurie is a great actor). I like Two and a Half Men and I think I understand what you mean because some episodes are just so much better than the others. For example I feel that the end of season 5 was rather poor and inequal whereas season 6 started very well. I guess it's not easy to come up with new ideas for a sitcom like this especially after 6 or 7 seasons. Still the last episodes I've seen weren't that bad so I guess they will keep making more of them (especially when you consider how successful that show is). On the same note I'd be surprised if they cancelled 24. That show is great but it would be nice though to see Kiefer Sutherland in movies for a change.

Regarding writers, I'm not a fan of Joss Whedon but since I've been reading about series and the way networks dealt with them I'm impressed with all the things that guy was able to pull out. Some of what I've seen may have been a bit formulaic with a very strong emphasis on badass characters and one liners (Serenity may not be a TV show but it's a perfect example of what I mean here) still you have to hand it to him that his record is impressive. I wonder when we'll get a chance to see Dollhouse over here and if it is any good.

Perhaps they just make these short lived shows to see if they can hit the motherlode (producing another Friends must be any producer's ultimate wet dream) and they know that they'll cut their losses by selling the unsuccessful shows all over the world anyway (I actually discovered Six Degrees while I was on a trip in the Middle East). After that, with any luck the shows will be released on DVDs so that frustrated fans can seize the opportunity to watch over and over again the precious few episodes of shows that have been cancelled for years. Now, isn't that sad?

 

Not really addressing the issue here but I'll also agree that I'm pissed off that they Cancelled Deadwood before it was resolved. I'm especially pissed that they cancelled Dirty, Sexy Money though. I thought that show was awesome.

Also, The Lost Room had a lot more potential but at least they brought it to a somewhat satisfactory conclusion.

 

It's all about what the public will watch -- quality is determined by the quantity of viewers.

I'd watch TV more if they loosened up and showed more nudity. It is my (possibly erroneous) understanding that they show a lot more skin in Europe. Go Europe!

 

We used to get more nudity before especially in TV ads, now it's all toned down. As far as European movies are concerned, generalizing can be misleading but movies over here tend to show some nudity at one time or another (some more than others). As far as American movies are concerned it seems that the bigger the movie the less nudity you get to see. Still, I was surprised by some TV shows like The L Word or Californication, it's unusual to see so much nudity in such programs. Perhaps you should watch these if you like some eye candy.

 

There are exceptions though. I do remember NYPD BLUE airing several episodes with nude scenes. I believe how late at night it is can be a factor.

 

So it's ok to see a guy's buttocks but not a hot girl's? It's bad when all that politically correct nonsense prevails over good taste!

 

PBS shows nudity every now and then...althought it's generally a BBC show (Monty Python's Full Frontal Nudity episode and I Claudius come to mind).

 

American TV is mostly garbage. Sorry Americans.

 

Oh, no, there was definitely breasts. Sharon Lawrence, The Blonde Receptionist and I believe another of Jimmy Smits girls all busted them out.

 

Examples?

I would say most TV everywhere is garbage, but there are definitely good shows here.

 

don't forget Kim Delany was nude as well...

American TV is geared toward an 8th grade education -- which is why there are so many sports channels.

 

...and FOX News

 

Splunge, how dare you! How dare you insult sports like that....