"Missing" goes Missing.

[The Voice of Reason]

No big surprise here that ABC pulled the plug on "Missing".

It had nothing to do with Ashley Judd's puffy face or trying to force her expanding rear end into a pair of tight jeans. The real reason was the show was shot on location in Europe and heaven forbid networks don't want to spend that kind of money.

Besides that the plot was getting a bit thin. After all one would think that a trained CIA agent could find her own kid don't you?

 

[ansky212]

So it's officially gone next season? I really liked the show - it was like watching a movie. On the last episode Ashley Judd went missing at the end. I thought that would be the cliffhanger that led into next season.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So it's officially gone next season? I really liked the show - it was like watching a movie. On the last episode Ashley Judd went missing at the end. I thought that would be the cliffhanger that led into next season.

According to the ABC fall line up for the 2012-2013 season "Missing" is not listed. I also read on another web site that "Missing" was among the list of shows not being renewed.

 

[LKellerIII]

No big surprise here that ABC pulled the plug on "Missing".

It had nothing to do with Ashley Judd's puffy face or trying to force her expanding rear end into a pair of tight jeans.

No surprise to me, and I think Ashley looks just fine. I forced myself through the first episode, and had no desire to return for the second. I just didn't find it compelling, despite the subject matter. For a lesson on how to do this kind of show (IMO), see Revenge. Trashy? Yes. Stretches credibility at times? Yes. But relentlessly paced with sympathetic characters, and the viewer is always anxious to see what happens next.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Some one please explain to me how can a network gauge if a show is a ratings success or failure after only a few episodes have aired?

Years ago network programs started in September and ran until March or April. Then a number of these same shows would air repeats over the summer months for those viewers who might not have watched the original programs.

Today a show is on for maybe a two months or more and then goes on hiatus for several weeks (or sometimes a year) only to have the first new episode rehash what previously happened.

I'm not a fan of "Missing" but to be fair the show has only been on for about two months (I think) and it is already heading for the scrap pile.

The same goes for NYC 22. That show, which is produced by the same company that Robert DiNero founded (Tribeca sp), has been canceled after just a few episodes.

Plain and simple the networks are not giving time for programs to gather an audience before lowering the boom.

 

[ansky212]

Stretches credibility at times? Yes. But relentlessly paced with sympathetic characters, and the viewer is always anxious to see what happens next.

This is exactly how my wife and I felt about Missing. I thought the pace was great and we couldn't wait to see what happened next.

 

[ansky212]

The same goes for NYC 22. That show, which is produced by the same company that Robert DiNero founded (Tribeca sp), has been canceled after just a few episodes.

This one doesn't surprise me. There are far too many cop/detective type shows on TV. We're oversaturated with that stuff. I watched NYC 22 a few times and it was ok, but it seemed to have a low-budget feel to it.

 

[landtuna]

For a lesson on how to do this kind of show (IMO), see Revenge. Trashy? Yes. Stretches credibility at times? Yes. But relentlessly paced with sympathetic characters, and the viewer is always anxious to see what happens next.

I never watched Missing but your comments on Revenge are spot on although the pace of each episode has slowed greatly since the first 4-5 of the season. I kept wondering what they would do for a story line if Amanda killed off all the Graysons by the end of the season. Now we are seeing more sub-plots and lingering stories, more like a true soaper.

 

[Mark Giardina]

http://theclicker.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11722194-tvs-5-biggest-canceled-shows

Here is proof that "Missing" is among a list of canceled shows.

 

[LKellerIII]

Some one please explain to me how can a network gauge if a show is a ratings success or failure after only a few episodes have aired?

Years ago network programs started in September and ran until March or April. Then a number of these same shows would air repeats over the summer months for those viewers who might not have watched the original programs.

Today a show is on for maybe a two months or more and then goes on hiatus for several weeks (or sometimes a year) only to have the first new episode rehash what previously happened.

I'm not a fan of "Missing" but to be fair the show has only been on for about two months (I think) and it is already heading for the scrap pile.

The same goes for NYC 22. That show, which is produced by the same company that Robert DiNero founded (Tribeca sp), has been canceled after just a few episodes.

Plain and simple the networks are not giving time for programs to gather an audience before lowering the boom.

True, but only up to a point. There are a few instances of shows that got mediocre ratings at first, but were allowed to grow, and ended up being a success. IIRC, All in the Family , and Seinfeld were two such shows. But they were shows that got a lot of publicity for being different and/or controversial, so the networks were smart enough to give them extra time.

But the fact is, as far back as the 60s, many shows were cancelled after only 13 weeks, which means they were gone between Thanksgiving and Christmas. It was either Milton Berle or Don Rickles who remarked (sarcastically) that the way to end the long Vietnam War was to put it on ABC so it would be cancelled in 13 weeks.

The ratings on Missing were low, and trending down, not up. Awake on NBC scored even lower, but not by much, and that show has also been cancelled.

 

[Mediafrog+]

My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed Missing, mainly due to the gorgeous location shooting. At least the show got to wrap up the initial storyline.

The show probably would have done better in a later time slot. Leading off the evening was bad positioning for this type of drama. If it aired after a solid lead-in, it might have held more audience.

I also suspect the audience skewed too old.

And yes, I think Ashley Judd looks pretty solid at age 44.

 

[ansky212]

One bad thing about Missing is that it's the type of show you have to watch from the beginning, and if you miss even a single episode, it's hard to follow what's going on. So anybody that missed the first episode probably did not tune in to later episodes.