• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

What's the purpose of cancelling fan favorites?

tall_guy1

tall_guy1

Arrested Development, Futurama, Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23, Mission Hill (well, maybe just mine:p), ect. ect. only to get replaced by cheesy new programming in the fall (remember this? It seems like it happens every year, too, where lower-rated but beloved shows get cancelled only to be replaced by abysmally-rated "new" shows they think will catch on? What's your take?:confused:
 
tall_guy1 said:
Arrested Development, Futurama, Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23, Mission Hill (well, maybe just mine:p), ect. ect. only to get replaced by cheesy new programming in the fall (remember this? It seems like it happens every year, too, where lower-rated but beloved shows get cancelled only to be replaced by abysmally-rated "new" shows they think will catch on? What's your take?:confused:
Click to expand...

My take is that the networks are always looking for the next big program(s) and unless they get rid of current low-rated shows they would not have room for the new ones. They obviously don't want to pay for existing low-rated shows at the same time they are paying to develop new ones.

A very few shows have come back after cancellation because of viewer complaints. And sometimes it is one of the execs (or their wives) who cancel or retrieve a show from the dead.
 
tall_guy1 said:
Arrested Development, Futurama, Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23, Mission Hill (well, maybe just mine:p), ect. ect. only to get replaced by cheesy new programming in the fall (remember this? It seems like it happens every year, too, where lower-rated but beloved shows get cancelled only to be replaced by abysmally-rated "new" shows they think will catch on? What's your take?:confused:
Click to expand...

"Lower rated" kind of answers the question in most cases. Nearly any show is "beloved" to someone, but with limited 'shelf space,' the networks need to do what's best for the bottom line, and someone will inevitably be disappointed as a result.
 
On the other hand, "Jane the Virgin" and "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" on The CW are about as low-rated as any show on broadcast TV. And yet The CW has renewed all their shows. These two were loved by the critics and won awards, but sometimes even that isn't enough.

"Angel from Hell", on the other hand, got respectable Nielsen ratings with all viewers, but somehow that wasn't enough.
 
vchimpanzee said:
On the other hand, "Jane the Virgin" and "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" on The CW are about as low-rated as any show on broadcast TV. And yet The CW has renewed all their shows.
Click to expand...

The CW may have much lower standards for an acceptable rating than the major networks.
 
Bob Eubanks said:
"Lower rated" kind of answers the question in most cases. Nearly any show is "beloved" to someone, but with limited 'shelf space,' the networks need to do what's best for the bottom line, and someone will inevitably be disappointed as a result.
Click to expand...

Your answer is a good one. In the evolving world of many providers (basic and premium cable) and streaming, I think there is a greater tendency than ever before to jettison shows that have borderline ratings, for the next new thing. I understand the reason Arrested Development was a cult favorite, but with so many alternatives to watch, I couldn't ever bond with it, despite my love of Jeffrey Tambor and some of the other cast. I thought Don't Trust the B... was decent, but nothing more than that, despite my love for Krysten Ritter. No worries, though - she will go far, I think. And these are just MY opinions.

Remember the bad old days (not that long ago) when a borderline show like According to Jim could lurch on and avoid cancellation for years because the network had no new ideas? I certainly don't want to return to that world.

I've always wondered why a show like Don't Trust the B gets only borderline ratings, when the similar, but truly wretched steaming pile of manure like 2 Broke Girls can be a hit and last multiple seasons. It may be as simple as the difference between number 1 (CBS) and number 4 (ABC).

As more people begin streaming, there are great opportunities for new shows like The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt , Master of None, and Transparent (Jeffrey Tambor, again). And its also allowed shows like Arrested Development and Fuller House (ugh!) to have new life beyond the Big 4 networks. But going forward, I think it will be unusual for these shows to produce more than 8 or 10 shows per "season," or to last more than a few "seasons." I think that's a good thing because it creates more opportunity for new ideas.
 
The other day I noticed a list on the Internet of the status of shows (renewed, cancelled, ending). The list was 136 entries long! I had no idea there were so many current shows on "TV" (the definition of which now includes shows not broadcast over the air by traditional networks). Some shows such as Last Man Standing were omitted from that list because they are currently in renew limbo (or ABC/Disney hasn't released their status yet).
 
landtuna said:
The other day I noticed a list on the Internet of the status of shows (renewed, cancelled, ending). The list was 136 entries long! I had no idea there were so many current shows on "TV" (the definition of which now includes shows not broadcast over the air by traditional networks). Some shows such as Last Man Standing were omitted from that list because they are currently in renew limbo (or ABC/Disney hasn't released their status yet).
Click to expand...

Try http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/category/renewcancel/

This is the most reliable renew / cancel status site I have found. Keep in mind that the OTA networks don't have a single-time release of renewals and cancellations. Some shows are cancelled and yanked just a few episodes into a season. Others are cancelled but allowed to run out the episodes they have in the can. Some renewals or cancellations are not known until around the end of the season as the nets evaluated existing products vs. pilots being produced.

And many network shows with lower ratings are renewed if the network owns them; the syndication payback is much higher there. In other cases, third party produced shows may take a lower amount from the network to get a season or two more so they can rake in syndication fees. Other considerations may be how well the show sells in foreign markets (US comedy does not universally translate, for example).

And the cable networks have different seasons than the OTA networks. Today it does not matter whether a product is on a cable net or OTA, since cable/satellite/streaming penetration is virtually universal.
 
tall_guy1 said:
Arrested Development, Futurama, Don't Trust the B---- in Apt. 23, Mission Hill (well, maybe just mine:p), ect. ect. only to get replaced by cheesy new programming in the fall (remember this? It seems like it happens every year, too, where lower-rated but beloved shows get cancelled only to be replaced by abysmally-rated "new" shows they think will catch on? What's your take?:confused:
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mindy_Project

But Wait some shows that get canceled notably like the Mindy Project may get canceled on Fox and resurface on Hulu mainly on where the target demos are at.
 
LKellerIII said:
but truly wretched steaming pile of manure like 2 Broke Girls can be a hit and last multiple seasons.
Click to expand...
I think the Girls are great.

Your description of the show does apply to Oleg and Sophie, however. I hate hearing the audience cheer every time Sophie walks on stage because it means there's no getting rid of her.
 
As already noted, the economics get complicated. Some other factors...

The longer a show is on, the more expensive it becomes to produce.

Keeping a show on too long, can reduce syndication potential. Syndication is almost pure profit. No more production costs. Keep re-running it and the money rolls in.

People who like the show are in the wrong "demographic" categories.

Some suit makes the wrong call. Programming decisions are subjective and made in conditions of extreme uncertainty.

Closely related, a new suit wants to make his mark or show up the guy who held the job previously. Cancel old stuff so you can put in your stuff.

And then there's Person of Influence.
 
network olders new a show but then new execs come in an cancels with the previous execs ordered, network execs don't get a show or set it up to fail with bad scheduling like they did with Freaks & Geeks
 
And that's what makes these shows prone to preemption, either by the network for special programming or locally because the affiliate didn't think the program met their expectations. Any examples of this? Or they can go on the preemption thread.
 
vchimpanzee said:
I think the Girls are great.

Your description of the show does apply to Oleg and Sophie, however. I hate hearing the audience cheer every time Sophie walks on stage because it means there's no getting rid of her.
Click to expand...

Oleg is hillarious! I actually think Max is the one who drags the show down...
 
How about when a show changes hosts. For Example when Jon Stewart Left the Daily Show and Trevor Noah took over the host seat because "The Daily Show" had to attract younger audiences to the show. Or the Late Show where David Letterman left and Stephen Colbert took over on similar grounds. For Long time audiences that would be considered an outrage to them. but to Younger Audiences something to consider.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
network olders new a show but then new execs come in an cancels with the previous execs ordered, network execs don't get a show or set it up to fail with bad scheduling like they did with Freaks & Geeks
Click to expand...

There are definitely cases where a show that had been doing well gets shuffled off to a dead end time slot because network executives want to end it.
 
anotherguy said:
There are definitely cases where a show that had been doing well gets shuffled off to a dead end time slot because network executives want to end it.
Click to expand...


What about shows that get cancelled because some DMA's pre-empt primetime programming because they had to air the primary results live. Has this happen in your state recently?.
 
RadioPatrol said:
What about shows that get cancelled because some DMA's pre-empt primetime programming because they had to air the primary results live. Has this happen in your state recently?.
Click to expand...

That's about what I said a few posts ago, except most of the time it has nothing to do with elections. Sometimes low-rated shows are preempted for infomercials.
 
Last edited:
tall_guy1 said:
Oleg is hillarious! I actually think Max is the one who drags the show down...
Click to expand...
Both of them are known for filthy humor, but I think it's the fact Max is an adorable girl that makes her trash tolerable. I still remember her as Bob Saget's cute teenage daughter. This was after "Full House".
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom