I was going to write a nice blog post about how summer has even more quality TeeVee than fall now (especially since 17th Precinct didn't get ordered). We've got Torchwood, Breaking Bad, Damages and True Blood. But then one of the best dramas I've seen in fucking YEARS got canceled and, well, here's the blog post you get.
In January, TNT president Michael Wright had this to say about Men Of A Certain Age:
We couldn’t be happier with the show. We look for a lot of different metrics on TNT. Obviously we want big ratings success, but we also want attention and good reviews from critics. This show works on a lot of levels for us.
Now that the show has rudely been canceled by Wright, it's time to call bullshit. But let's be fair. Whenever a network president says something like this about a show, you know the show is doomed.
I wasn't in the room when MOACA was unceremoniously yanked off TNT's airwaves (if there are even still things called airwaves). I have no reason to doubt Wright's sincerity when he talks about the quality of the show. As people have been joking since the cancellation, "I guess that one viewer is pretty upset," it's clear that the majority of Americans had never even heard of it.
As an aside, I think that if it's okay to joke about a lot of people losing their jobs, then I can joke when teachers gets laid off. Fair? Cool.
So.
Who's fault is it that hardly anybody had even heard of the show when it was cancelled? Can you really blame the viewers? Especially the viewers who watch whatever's doing well on TNT? I don't watch anything on TNT, yet when I heard about MOACA, I thought it sounded intriguing and wanted to check it out. Does that make me better than all y'all who hadn't even fucking HEARD of it BUT WATCHED STUFF ON TNT?
Because honestly.
But actually -- and it's sad for me to say this -- that does NOT make me better than you. This is still the business I'm in (I know -- SHOCKER). And as such, I find that it is somewhat helpful to know what's on the television machine. Even if I only watch an episode or two, I like to be familiar. And sometimes I've only watched an episode or two of shows and then given up, only to be pulled back when people told me I should reinvest (Veronica Mars comes to mind). Other times, the show has been on my radar but I'm a few seasons behind before I get into it (Friday Night Lights). But I'm rather proud to say that I watched Buffy from episode one. There are TeeVee critics who can't say THAT. And don't get me STARTED on people whose job it is to WATCH TEEVEE not watching TeeVee.
So I don't expect the regular TeeVee viewer to check everything out. It's not their job. It IS the job of the network to promote their shows. And if people tuning into Leverage didn't know about MOACA, then the fault lies squarely on the network's shoulders. Sure, I suppose people who like Leverage and whatever else is on TNT wouldn't have any interest in a quiet, well-written drama about men approaching fifty. After all, there are no aliens or heists or interrogation room scenes. But MOACA wasn't even one of those demanding shows, or tough shows. It was instantly likeable and -- networks LURVE this word -- relatable. And granted, the show wasn't of the TNT "brand." But if your brand is so tightly-focused, then don't pick the show up, even if you adore it. Because the cancellation day will be coming.
A sidebar on brands. I thoroughly understand the fact that networks need to brand themselves. I've been on shows that were so isolated in the schedule that there was no way to cross-promote them (cross-promotion means being able to promote a show throughout the week). I UNDERSTAND THIS PROBABLY BETTER THAN ANYONE. I love the puzzle of network programming. I think I would be good at it (and an executive told me this once, when I told her that Lone Star was going to fail). But cross-promotion has evolved into out-and-out branding and while some branding is a good idea because it gives the executives and writers guidelines on what the network will put on, too much branding means that your focus is so tight that you won't take any chances at all. And this isn't good creatively.
Oh, it works MONETARILY. Because if you put one light procedural on and people watch it, you can put thirty on and the same Goddam sheep will glue their eyeballs to the screen because Show 2 looks exactly the same as Show 1 except the actors vary slightly. That may work for a board of directors, but it doesn't work as a creative endeavor. And while I UNDERSTAND BETTER THAN ANYONE that television is a business, it's also got its creative side. A side, I may add, that is becoming increasingly diminished with every season.
Sidebar number two on network branding. If you want to see a network that knows its brand, check out CBS. It's really easy to know what to pitch there. It's also interesting that on occasion, CBS has tried to venture out of its brand and try something new, and that something new always fails. I do not blame the CBS executives for this. CBS has a very natural brand and demographic. It really works for them, which is why they continue to be such a big success. What MIGHT be interesting in the coming years is seeing if NBC's cable networks start leeching CBS's viewers. We'll see. Anyway, CBS developed a show with Sarah Michelle Gellar this year that clearly wasn't a CBS show, and it went to the CW. GREAT move. Incidentally, I was on a show that didn't fit on CBS and was handed off to UPN. The show SHOULD HAVE WORKED but guess what? No support.
Anyway.
What did TNT do to MOACA? Simple. They never told the audience what the show WAS. They didn't promote it, they didn't find a way to promote it, then they kept dividing up the seasons so the show got no momentum at all, it didn't do well, and it got cancelled. Remember when ABC yanked Lost around and viewers left? As soon as ABC gave Lost 13 episodes a season without a break, viewership came back. Because even though we have DVRs and never really have to know when something's on, there's still STORYTELLING at work. Episodic storytelling. It IS interesting that Falling Skies doesn't fit into the TNT paradigm either, but it's doing well because the network actually fucking PROMOTED it. I was on a terrific show that the network just didn't get at all, and didn't support. But they promoted the shit out of everything else. So I know how this thing goes, and that's how it went with MOACA.
More than that, and this REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF, people in the industry didn't watch it. How do I know this? Because it never got nominated for a fucking thing. The people who vote for the Emmys are just trying to mimic the viewing audience. They want their Eminem Oscar cred. So why would they bother voting for a show that just TOLD GOOD STORIES WITH INTERESTING CHARACTERS? How sexy is THAT? The Emmy voters let this show down BIG-time. But then they let Friday Night Lights down, too, giving it the stupid fucking "final season" Emmy nomination that is, frankly, more insulting than just continuing to ignore it.
Remember when cable used to be a haven? It used to be the place where shows that didn't fit into the broadcast paradigm could thrive. But cable networks are owned by the parent companies of broadcast networks, so even though you think you're watching a rebel pirate cable network, you're really watching NBC with less of a licensing fee. And this means less risk-taking. And when a network like TNT takes a risk on MOACA and it fails, what do you think that does to further risk-taking?
Fucking obliterates it, that's what.
What's really galling about this is that we all GET IT. We had a really good drama idea we wanted to pitch, but we were told that we wouldn't be able to sell it because it was too much like Friday Night Lights. And you know what? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. But think about that for a second -- one of the best dramas IN THE HISTORY OF THE FUCKING MEDIUM, and we can't pitch a show that is a similar kind of drama because Friday Night Lights is a FAILURE.
It's too horrifying to fathom. But when you think about the business end of things, yes. That's true. And NOBODY involved thinks it's right, but you can't change it. You just can't.
Because we all need to survive, and the only way to do that in this environment is to tell ourselves -- repeatedly -- that no matter what we are doing, we are being creative. Because we look at what happens with such a wonderful show like MOACA and we cringe, seeing how a real, honest voice is treated by a network publicity department and the asshat audience who's too stupid or too uncaring to recognize or appreciate quality.
While the network led the audience in this particular case, it just makes me despair that all of us creative types are ever going to tell you OUR STORIES in OUR VOICES. Because you don't care. All you want is shit blowing up, people taking shades off and squinting into the sun, pithy remarks while handcuffing suspects, a chase scene through Vancouver, kids singing Journey songs, and reality TeeVee.
And because all of this still runs on an ancient ratings system that doesn't involve ANYONE who actually gives a shit about storytelling, YOU WILL ALL CONTINUE TO GET YOUR WAY.
But know this -- the second you start complaining about how there's nothing on is one second before I fucking GUT YOU.
There WAS something on. You were just too lame to recognize it.

8 comments:
Things are frequently no better on this side of the Atlantic. A few years back one of the big channels commissioned an original historical drama series from a writer on the rise.
This show wasn't set in Victorian times, nor was it adapted from a classic novel, nor were bodices being ripped, nor were bosoms heaving...
Everyone agreed the show itself was good, but some genius programmed it for Friday nights - where the schedule is full of comedies, sketch shows and panels.
Friday night is the start of the weekend, when people are out getting drunk or having a good time. Those people who are in want to have a good time.
Quality historical drama has never worked on Friday nights, at least not in the last 20 years. Sunday nights? Yes. Mid-week? Yes. Friday nights? Hell, no.
Having buried this under-promoted quality drama on Friday nights, it didn't rate well. Imagine everyone's surprise.
The failure of this show became a stick with which to beat back anybody pitching any original historical drama for years after. [Adaptations remained okay, they were a separate category.]
Not only did historical dramas cost more to make [accepted wisdom suggests 25% more], but they don't rate well. And networks would cite the failure of the original historical drama series mentioned above as cast iron proof.
That was a RULE in British TV drama for about five years, until Downton Abbey proved it utterly wrong. [Downton Abbey was scheduled on Sunday nights, by the way.]
I saw plenty of ads for this show on TNT, even in the weeks before the second season premiere. I don't think lack of advertising is what killed the show.
I liked the show, and I think you're right that the problem is that the advertising couldn't say what the show was. But that's because the show wasn't anything in particular.
It's a character study of ordinary people in ordinary circumstances and lots of people don't tune in for that. Emmy voters apparently won't even watch Treme.
At least the show got some Emmy love. It's just too bad Andre Braugher is up against Peter Dinklage.
Know where I saw MOACA promoted? On other channels. Mostly USA, I think, though I wouldn't swear to it. But since I had it in my head for the longest time that it was a USA show, I'm going to stick with that theory.
Thinking over the last few years, there are a significant number of shows I caught my first glimpse of when they were promoted on other channels. Which... I can't decide whether it's a sliver of hope, or another symptom of too-tight focus, or both.
Certainly for Blood Ties, the example that springs immediately to mind because I was most invested in it of everything cancelled out from under me in the last few years, it probably wasn't so hot a harbinger. Or at least it was a case study in how much it sucks to be the first attempt by a network to expand their brand, because we then can't be too surprised if they pull back sharply from that direction. Especially if they change management over a summer, which further complicates the scenario.
But in any event, that seems to be the evolution of cross-promotion for anything that's not narrowly on-brand. Which means the networks have some idea from the outset that they're looking for a new audience. They just don't seem to recognize or value it when they get it.
While I can't disagree with your theory, I will say that I knew exactly who was broadcasting MOACA and when a new season was about to begin. Unfortunately, although I tuned in a couple of different times, I found nothing all that compelling in it for me to keep watching.
(Er...lest you call me a philistine, I do regularly enjoy 30 Rock, Community, The Good Wife, Game of Thrones, Shameless, and this summer am particularly enjoying Wilfred.)
If you want to complain about a show being mishandled by its network, try Terriers.
I was the the one who made fun of you and that show being cancelled. Sorry about that. It was fun to tease you until you mentioned the teacher getting laid off (which my wife is) and that brought it into perspective.
It still stings to know I don't get new episodes of Rubicon.
When I first heard about this show, I thought it was doomed. It sounded like the kind of small-scale, emotional stories the female audience longs for, but it was about men. I wonder if it simply slipped between demographics.
Wasn't Dave Anthony on an episode this season? Uh-huh. Kiss o' death.
Good show, I watched it from the beginning--but I think you got a typo there. You mention quality TV shows and accidentally put True Blood in there.
That show is nearly unwatchable now...
Post a Comment