Debbie:
The Paul Reiser Show was canceled after only two episodes — really? This type of network decision is made frequently these days, and I want to analyze why.
Back in the day when you still had to get up to change the channel on the 3-5 networks available, shows generally got at least a full season to find an audience. This is true even 15-20 years ago.
What if The Paul Reiser Show was the next Seinfeld? Seinfeld could have easily been canceled after the first two crappy episodes … it took a really long time for that show to find its groove.
So I guess my question to you is this: Why do you think this is happening? Is it because there are just too many offerings that the shows have to be great from the pilot on or they are doomed? Were people more willing to give shows a chance before remotes, DVRs and hundreds of stations? What gives?
Bob:
Did you see any of The Paul Reiser show? It had a LONG way to go to become the next Seinfeld. With that being said, yes, some shows do take some time to find their stride. The cynic in me says that we have just become a more results oriented, more competitive society, which is a little bit sad.
I think the real answer, however, has to do with the rise of cable. When there were only 3-5 networks, you could have a stinky show and people would still watch if they didn’t like the other 3-4 shows. Now people have many, many, many more options. Add to that the rise of On Demand, DVR, and alternate forms of online entertainment (like YouTube or Funny or Die), and there is a whole lot more competition out there. I don’t think the networks can really afford to let shows sit around, hoping they will get better.
It’s a double edged sword. I think it’s a shame that we are missing out on some great television that could develop. On the other hand, I think it is pushing television forward faster. Instead of only having a few great shows on, writers and producers are forced, just by the nature of the business, to innovate and get even more creative, giving us many more good shows. Plus, there’s cable, always pushing the envelope. Overall, I’m okay with it.
Debbie:
Not even a millisecond of The Paul Reiser Show crossed my screen … not even a trailer. It’s just the principle of the thing, not necessarily that show. Paul Reiser’s a pretty big name in the sitcom business, though. Surely everyone remembers the cutting edge My Two Dads and that other one with the mouthy blonde. You’d think that would hold some weight and at least buy the guy a season.
I think you’re right about things on the one hand, there is a lot of competition out there, but on the other hand, I think a lot of shows that could be great get lost in the numbers, the dollar signs and the poor marketing strategies. And if you were really right, about pushing TV to be better, there really wouldn’t be so much drivel on … we’d have all quality shows if your theory held water.
And just to push that a little further, are we really getting more creative shows? It seems like we’re getting a few creative shows, like enough to fill 3-5 networks like back in the day. Then we’re getting a bunch of copycats trying to hitchhike on others’ successes … and a bunch of sensationalist crap.
Yes, I can almost always find something good to watch, so all is not lost, but I don’t think that enough shows with potential are given a real shot.
Bob:
Yes, there is a lot of copy-catting, but I think that’s natural. To me, it means that a particular show is so creative and innovative, that others are trying to cash in on the success. Certainly, not all shows are going to be successful in their attempts to be great, and maybe some of those big failures are really creative and ahead of their time and we’re just not ready for them. Okay, maybe I’m being a little generous there, but I still think that there is a lot more creativity on television than there used to be. Maybe it’s just a matter of the standard sitcom stories having been played out.
I think you need to watch more cable. There is a lot of creative freedom and there is even a lot of patience on the part of the networks. Network television may be dying, and that’s exactly why the networks can’t afford to give a show with horrible ratings a lot of time.
Debbie:
You just said something that made a lot of sense to me — the desperation of the networks plays a big part in their enthusiasm to cancel shows so quickly. I’m sure you’re right … sigh … we just don’t quibble like we used to. …
Clacked by Debbie McDuffee
on Apr 28, 2011 @ 11:00 EST5EDT
The Paul Reiser Show was horrible. You can tell the show was horrible from the 100 previews I saw… none of them actually showed the show. I don’t know why NBC didn’t give it a few more weeks, not like they have that much to fill with. There probably were only like 6-8 episodes anyways.
However it does seem networks are more willing than they used to be with shows. Very few shows were puled that quickly this year, some shows even got a full season that they didn’t deserve (NOF and The Event), so that’s nice to see.
I was very disappointed in The Paul Reiser Show. They still could have given it a little longer.
Reiser was doing a dumbed-down broadcast version of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”. Which is a bad idea for anyone who’s ever seen “Curb”. It’s the difference between cheese and nonfat cheese. One tastes good, the other makes you want to spit it out of your mouth before swallowing. But that’s about poor execution (aka WRITING), not the show concept.
Even so, the “Curb” idea is a decent one, which could work with a different personality than Larry David. That could have been Reiser. The cast was pretty good–it was the writing that needed to improve drastically. Series start with either their best episode (writers have the most time to work on it) or their worst episode (the writers haven’t really figured it out yet). So I think 6 aired shows, in the same timeslot, run in consecutive weeks, is really the very least a network owes a new show. Especially one with a star who has done as much for them as Reiser has.
I could have handled them using the Curb format (I noticed it really early in the first episode), but then they flat out told me they were just making it Curb by bringing Larry David on and having him tell Paul that he should do a show like Curb. Larry practically said it into the camera. That’s where they lost me. I’m kind of hoping they bring back Perfect Couples to replace the show, because that show at least had some legs.
Networks have to rethink how they launch shows. Use your cable channels to launch a show, if it’s good rerun it in the summer on your network and then launch the second season on your network.
Promos just don’t work anymore. Mouth to ear still works. We watch show our friends tell us to watch.
In today’s TV landscape it does all come down to the money. In a lot of cases, advertisers pay a certain fee for their ads to be on certain shows, the network guarantees a specific rating and if those numbers aren’t achieved (and drop in week two) the advertisers panic, the network has to give them a refund or time on another more successful show and the plug is pulled on the show that shows it has absolutely no potential for ratings growth. Reiser was a big star on NBC, so they hoped for some good numbers, at least on par with what Community pulls in. But, besides the terrible, unfunny script (at least for the one episode I saw), launching the show after Communtiy, a great show that few people watch, was a huge misstep. NBC should have bumped Parks & Recretion for a week to give the show a special launch after The Office and then move it to its regular time slot to see if it could maintain it’s numbers. But they didn’t, the numbers were bad, NBC saw money flying away and they pulled it.
We saw a similar situation on Fox this season with Lone Star, one of the best reviewed but little watched shows of the season. Gone after three episodes because the numbers dropped every week, there was no sense of stabilization or growth in its future, so Fox pulled it to prevent the hemorrhaging of money.
A lot of shows in the past survived because there was a limited number of outlets for television programming and some shows were financed by a single sponsor. If the network wasn’t in the hole for money, they didn’t have to worry so much about the ratings because the sponsor paid them to air the program. That rarely happens these days with the occasional special event or a pilot episode but no single sponsor finances an entire series anymore. Perhaps if Reiser’s show had been sponsored by Ford, WalMart, Target or some billion dollar oil company, NBC would have given it more of a chance.