CBS Cancels Vegas: Big Mistake!

[Mark Giardina]

Don't mean to harp on this but I truly believe that CBS executives are making a huge mistake in canceling Vegas. If the show isn't doing that well in its current time slot, then move it. But to cancel the show is the wrong decision.

Perhaps the network just wanted to cut costs because of the expense of shooting on location. Who knows?

After looking at the upcoming CBS line-up for the 2013-2014 season, I can pick out a handful of shows that won't make it past six months before getting the ax. And I can't believe CBS is renewing Two Broke Girls but cutting loose Vegas.

NBC has nothing to lose by picking up Vegas considering how lame most of their programming is.

 

[FredLeonard]

Shooting on location? What location? CGI Fremont Street?

 

[umfan]

I don't like the decision either. They're moving Hawaii Five O to Fridays and pairing it with Blue Bloods. I think they wanted comedy blocks on Tuesday and Thursday so they dropped two dramas, Vegas and Golden Boy.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Shooting on location? What location? CGI Fremont Street?

I didn't mean they shot the show in Vegas, but it must cost networks more to have outdoor scenes shot versus inside studio lots. That is what I meant.

Also it must cost some dough to have all of those refurbished 1960's style autos featured in the show.

 

[LKellerIII]

Shooting on location? What location? CGI Fremont Street?

I didn't mean they shot the show in Vegas, but it must cost networks more to have outdoor scenes shot versus inside studio lots. That is what I meant.

Also it must cost some dough to have all of those refurbished 1960's style autos featured in the show.

Those outdoor shots of the Nevada desert, etc. - may also have been CGI. I remember reading a few years ago that in ER, most of those realistic looking exterior shots where the actors were walking around "Chicago" were shot in LA with the Chicago locations CGIed in. Green-screen work is a lot more realistic looking than it used to be.

The 60s era "Fremont Street" in Vegas is a set. Yes - I imagine the 60s era cars, clothing, and set decor cost them a bit, but I doubt the show was much more expensive to produce than your average police procedural .

 

[FredLeonard]

Agreed. In any case, sitcoms (almost all in-studio shots) are cheaper than dramas.

CBS really delivered the fatal blow when it moved Vegas to Fridays. They'd ordered the episodes, they had to do something with them. But they'd already made up their minds.

I sure liked Vegas a lot better than Golden Boy.

I understand viewers tried the show and didn't keep watching. We've heard here from fans of the show. I'd be curious to hear the impressions of people who bailed out or who weren't grabbed by the concept in the first place.

Almost all TV shows are set in present day. Some in the future. Very few period shows any more. This was a show set 50 years ago, so maybe it was an uphill struggle to get an audience. When The Untouchables took off, TV had a bunch of shows set in the 20s (40 years past at the time). Probably some network suit figured with the success of Mad Men, Kennedy-era dramas would be the next big thing. Mix in elements of westerns and gangster movies; something for everyone.

 

[LKellerIII]

Agreed. In any case, sitcoms (almost all in-studio shots) are cheaper than dramas.

CBS really delivered the fatal blow when it moved Vegas to Fridays. They'd ordered the episodes, they had to do something with them. But they'd already made up their minds.

I sure liked Vegas a lot better than Golden Boy.

I understand viewers tried the show and didn't keep watching. We've heard here from fans of the show. I'd be curious to hear the impressions of people who bailed out or who weren't grabbed by the concept in the first place.

Almost all TV shows are set in present day. Some in the future. Very few period shows any more. This was a show set 50 years ago, so maybe it was an uphill struggle to get an audience. When The Untouchables took off, TV had a bunch of shows set in the 20s (40 years past at the time). Probably some network suit figured with the success of Mad Men, Kennedy-era dramas would be the next big thing. Mix in elements of westerns and gangster movies; something for everyone.

A good analysis. I liked Vegas, but it was far from perfect. As I stated in another thread about cancelled shows, the season (series) finale was poorly done, IMO. Doing period dramas has got to be thankless work for producers because people like me pick on small mistakes. For example, Vegas was set in 1960, yet a lot of the "period" cars they use were made after 1960 - the black and white Vegas cop cars are 63 Fords. Most cars still had tail fins in 1960, which was the first year for the fin-less look. Of course, most viewers are too young to remember that. But it grated on me, and they would have avoided the probem if they had just said the show takes place in the early 60s, and avoided mention of any specific year.

Mad Men is meticulous about period details, but ocasionally a mistake will slip thorugh, and it will be all over the blogs the next day.

 

[justpassingthough]

Shows like 2 Broke Girls and HIMYM get close to double the viewers in the 18 to 49 game- and thats all that matters to advertisers. As much as we as TV viewers would like to think these shows exist for our entertainment, they exist to sell products to 18 to 49 year old viewers, even at CBS.

CBS is about to close out their first season as #1 in the 18 to 49 demo in over a decade- and they did so on the strength of shows like 2 Broke Girls that actually do well in the demo. It would be foolish for them to not cut loose the shows that did poorly in the demo. Had this aired on ABC or NBC, it probably would have been renewed. Its a double edged sword, though, where the strength of their schedule combined with the strength of many of their shows within the 18 to 49 demo means that many competitive shows are shown the door, while they might survive on other networks or on cable.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Shows like 2 Broke Girls and HIMYM get close to double the viewers in the 18 to 49 game- and thats all that matters to advertisers. As much as we as TV viewers would like to think these shows exist for our entertainment, they exist to sell products to 18 to 49 year old viewers, even at CBS.

CBS is about to close out their first season as #1 in the 18 to 49 demo in over a decade- and they did so on the strength of shows like 2 Broke Girls that actually do well in the demo. It would be foolish for them to not cut loose the shows that did poorly in the demo. Had this aired on ABC or NBC, it probably would have been renewed. Its a double edged sword, though, where the strength of their schedule combined with the strength of many of their shows within the 18 to 49 demo means that many competitive shows are shown the door, while they might survive on other networks or on cable.

"2 Broke Girls" is hilarious and one of my favorites.

I was considering watching "Vegas" but even after the move to Fridays it was just more than I had time for.

 

[BD Sullivan]

From this morning's USA Today:

Vegas was tied for the second-highest audience among new shows--with Fox's "The Following."

"Two of five top-rated new series were cancelled by CBS, because they drew too few young-adult viewers and had to make room for new shows this fall."

 

[Austin]

TV Guide predicted several months ago that it would be cancelled for this reason. I'm only 20 and that was one of my favorite shows this season.

 

[Nate Wesley]

From this morning's USA Today:

Vegas was tied for the second-highest audience among new shows--with Fox's "The Following."

"Two of five top-rated new series were cancelled by CBS, because they drew too few young-adult viewers and had to make room for new shows this fall."

QFT

And remember, it's CBS cutting old-skewing shows. They can afford to.

 

[Mark Giardina]

From this morning's USA Today:

Vegas was tied for the second-highest audience among new shows--with Fox's "The Following."

"Two of five top-rated new series were cancelled by CBS, because they drew too few young-adult viewers and had to make room for new shows this fall."

This doesn't come as a surprise to me, but it’s a shame when one figures that we (older-adult viewers) are being tossed aside by the networks in favor of younger demographics.

There is an interesting story that relates to television and those who decides what programs stay and go.
Back in 1967 ABC executives were going to end the four year run of "The Fugitive" by just airing another episode and not a resolution to the plight of Richard Kimble.

A top executive of that series went to see the president of ABC and said that the show needed a finale because the viewers would want that. The president of ABC and his network executives said no at first, citing that the viewing public wouldn't really care what happened to the character of Richard Kimble.

What finally happened is that the producers of "The Fugitive" managed to get funding from a sponsor to pay for the final two episodes to which the brass at ABC begrudgingly gave the go-ahead Those two episodes held the distinction of being the most-watched TV show for almost 20 years until the finale episode of M.A.S.H.

This proves that TV executives can be so out of touch with the viewing public, as I believe CBS was by cancelling “Vegas.”

 

[LKellerIII]

From this morning's USA Today:

Vegas was tied for the second-highest audience among new shows--with Fox's "The Following."

"Two of five top-rated new series were cancelled by CBS, because they drew too few young-adult viewers and had to make room for new shows this fall."

This doesn't come as a surprise to me, but it’s a shame when one figures that we (older-adult viewers) are being tossed aside by the networks in favor of younger demographics.

There is an interesting story that relates to television and those who decides what programs stay and go.
Back in 1967 ABC executives were going to end the four year run of "The Fugitive" by just airing another episode and not a resolution to the plight of Richard Kimble.

A top executive of that series went to see the president of ABC and said that the show needed a finale because the viewers would want that. The president of ABC and his network executives said no at first, citing that the viewing public wouldn't really care what happened to the character of Richard Kimble.

What finally happened is that the producers of "The Fugitive" managed to get funding from a sponsor to pay for the final two episodes to which the brass at ABC begrudgingly gave the go-ahead Those two episodes held the distinction of being the most-watched TV show for almost 20 years until the finale episode of M.A.S.H.

This proves that TV executives can be so out of touch with the viewing public, as I believe CBS was by cancelling “Vegas.”

Agreed. I'm older, so what do I know? But I would think that Vegas would have appealed to younger viewers with Sarah Jones (Mia), Taylor Handley (Dixon), and Aimee Garcia (Yvonne) in the cast. Jason Mara isn't exactly elderly, and Michael Chiklis (about 50, I think) has certainly done enough action roles (particularly in The Shield) to rate attention by younger viewers. I know that when I was younger, I enjoyed period dramas, but perhaps the subject matter and 60s time-frame don't appeal to the 18 - 34 crowd. Too bad.

I think that the ratings would have grown stronger in a second season...along the lines of The Good Wife, which has been a critical hit, but has never had monster ratings.

 

[Mark Giardina]

What saved a number of shows from the 1970s and 80s was summer reruns. Two examples come to mind: “Cheers” and “All in the Family.”

Today there are no summer reruns.

Fact is a number of shows go off the air for several months before returning and some people (yours truly) forgot what happened in the previous episode.

Now if summer reruns were back in vogue I believe that “Vegas” and other shows cancelled by the networks (Firefly) could have obtained more of a following and thus survived the network ax.

 

[FredLeonard]

The irony here is as one of those viewers in the demos now being "cast aside," I can remember my grandparents complaining 40 plus years ago about how they were being "cast aside." That was when Nielsen started reporting demos and the networks - CBS especially - started cancelling anything that skewed old, especially rural comedies (or as Pat Butram famously said when Green Acres was axed, they cancelled everything with a tree in it).

Lawrence Welk went into syndication and then to PBS and we're still talking about him. A lot of those other shows that skewed old are still running on cable and we're still watching them.

I did like Vegas but it didn't come close to being a classic. Sarah Jones was not in the pilot and apparently was added after Alcatraz was cancelled in an attempt to pull younger demos. Writing was on the wall early on, I guess.

 

[BD Sullivan]

What saved a number of shows from the 1970s and 80s was summer reruns. Two examples come to mind: “Cheers” and “All in the Family.”

Today there are no summer reruns.

Fact is a number of shows go off the air for several months before returning and some people (yours truly) forgot what happened in the previous episode.

Now if summer reruns were back in vogue I believe that “Vegas” and other shows cancelled by the networks (Firefly) could have obtained more of a following and thus survived the network ax.

Cheers had already been renewed by the time summer reruns had begun. What garnered it a lot of attention was the show winning Emmys for Best Comedy and Shelley Long winning for Best Actress in a Comedy.