PeterDavid.net

I'm surprised too - the general rule of thumb is that FOX can't handle quality sci-fi programming (with the possibly debatable exception of 'The X-Files') - and figured that because "Drive" isn't sci-fi, it would be safe. That said, I wasn't particularly impressed with the first night of 'Drive', but that might be because after handling several hours of Hunt Valley, MD traffic every day, any TV show that requests I not flip off at reckless drivers (because they might be participating in an "illegal secret high stakes race") is setting off on a wrong step.

Yup. Fox has one stupid hair trigger for killing good shows. It's gotten to the point that I don't even get too involved with a Fox show because I'll end up getting ticked when it goes "flush."

I may even be alone on this one, but I've never forgiven Fox for dumping Brimstone.

Oh, well.

The last two eps will be burned off in May on Fridays.

Love the show, and am convinced the race was Amy Acker's anniversary present to Nathan Fillion so he could be "that guy" one last time.

Jerry, you're not alone. Hey, I'm still ticked that they cancelled Beans Baxter and Werewolf. It really seems like Fox tries out these really good series, never gives any of them time to breathe, then cans them.

On the flip side, though, they haven't had a "When Harmless Things Inside Your House Attack" special in quite a while, so maybe SOMEWHERE in there is someone with SOME sense.

Yup, I remember Beans Baxter, Werewolf, Brimstone, and Herman's Head, for that matter. :)

PAD, is it possible tha we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous "I'll wait for the trades", only now for TV?

I know that theer are a few shoes I intend to catch up with this summer on DVD or from the internet. I don't even feel like doing so is in any way hurting the show since, as a non-Neilson family, whether or not I watch the show has no impact on the ratings.

Doing it that way has a few advantages--I get to watch the show all at once, which I like (I used to do the same with comics, get a few months worth and then read them all at once), I get to watch it on my own time and I don't fall in love with a show only to have it go poof.

Obviously though, if the folks who ARE the ratings families start thinking that way, it will have some bad effects.

MAN! I should have KNOWN. STUPID FOX!

Sure Drive isn't as great as Heroes or 24 imo, but I like it. Its a good show. It has a ton of potential. I really like Nathen Fillion as the lead (and the plotlines in it are fun). AND its a great lead-in to 24 now that Prison Break is, well, on a break. *SIGH* I just should have known....

Not even sure if I should even watch the next episode of Drive on Monday. I really shouldn't have started watching it in the first place (my dad didn't think it would be any good, but I thought it might since Tim Minear and Nathon Fillon are invovled with it. So we watched it, liked, and have been watching it. Big Mistake)...

I know. I know. I shouldn't be suprised by this. This is the network that killed Firefly, Wonderfalls, Lone Gunmen, Tru Calling, Sliders, V.R. 5, Strange Luck, Family Guy (ya, I know, they brought it back, but still...), Futurama, and...the list goes on and on and on.

Though I think its especially bad when I show like Drive gets cancelled. Just imagine if Prison Break had been canceled after only 4 episodes.....(or like Wonderfalls getting canned after that many)

*sigh*

Well, I don't know...

Might want to skip Mondays Drive.....

And I should definitly stop watching any new FOX shows. Or at least not watch them till I know their going to last more then one season. DVDs are our friends! *sigh*

DF2506
" On a positive note, Heroes was really good on Monday. Next Mondays looks GREAT. Wish NBC would put Heroes at 7 so that I could watch Heroes and then 24, instead of having to tape Heroes and watch 24..."

I'm not at all surprised that this happened, and neither should anyone else be, nor am I angry at FOX about it, for one simple reason: the show tanked in the ratings.

FOX did everything they could to promote this thing. In the two weeks leading to the premiere, you saw Nathan Fillion's mug on FOX more often than Kiefer Sutherland's.

And the ratings for the first three episodes were dreadful.

FOX isn't a public service to provide quality programming, FOX is a network that has to make money. They weren't going to make any with Drive.

I'm surprised FOX didn't cancel your blog before you had a chance to post this.

No surprise really.

Drive is pulling in an anemic 2.9 rating and 5 share, which ranks it 4th overall in that time period. Whereas the show that follows it, 24, is pulling in 6.3/10. (Heroes is coming in at 7.2/11, by the way.)

Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal have killed in the time slot. But the main reason for Drive's demise is that 2 comedy reruns on CBS kicked its butt handily.

If the ratings really were that bad, then it's hard to fault FOX for cancelling it.

At least this time it seemed like FOX really tried. With Firefly, they screwed it up right from the start. Commercials that didn't communicate what the show was about, episodes aired out of order, FOX really didn't seem to get Firefly at all. However, Tim Minear built Drive to have a simple, salable plot: it's an illegal cross country race. FOX has been pushing that like crazy, and I think the commercials represented the show as well as anyone could have.

But I still think they should have put more effort into it. I can't *fault* then for cancelling it, but I really wish they'd tried more. The night that Cheers debuted, it was 77th out of 77 network shows. They got lucky that NBC didn't cancel them right away, and that paid off. Drive really has potential, like Cheers did, and it's a shame to not even try moving it around, growing the fanbase over time, or seeing how it does in reruns when everyone has already seen Dancing with the Stars.

I'm fairly certain there's no episode next Monday. There's already been four episodes (the two hour premiere was really two episodes), and there's only been 6 eps produced. The worst part of all this is that unlike with Wonderfalls or The Inside, there isn't even a full arc in the can.

Sure enough, they just dumped it. One more episode will air next Monday, and two more already in the can will never be broadcast.
WHAT!?

NO!

Augh - I *really* liked Drive! Damnit. It was the first serial I've liked in a long time! Damn, damn damn.

Since they held the show until April, I suspected all along that they knew it was only going to run whatever number of episodes had already been taped and that it was just being used as filler after some other show, Prison Break in this case, had had its season finale. I have a problem with using low ratings as a justification for canceling the show when you put it on a night in a time slot where it has to go against two ratings monsters with established audiences. That says to me that it never really had the network's support. They could have rerun the episodes on different nights on Fox or FX. If there really were a commitment from the network, more effort could have been put into it than this. Whatever filler they put in its place now won't draw better ratings.

This will make me unpopular but FOX's lauded canceled programs, to me, deserved cancellation.

I am the only sci-fi fan in the world who wasn't impressed with Firefly. While many praise FOX for sticking with Arrested Development as long as they did, I did a tap-dance when it finally died.

I haven't tried Drive yet and don't really want to. I'm tired of TV shows with plots that sound like movies (How did Prison Break last beyond two hours?) Furthermore, that guy who's looking for his wife is the same actor from Firefly and he's playing another rough-edged hero. I can't stand him! He was a cliche in Firefly and he seems to be a cliche in Drive but I haven't seen the show--and don't intend to yet--so I can't really say for sure.

I welcome all your rotten tomatoes.

No surprise really. Drive is pulling in an anemic 2.9 rating and 5 share, which ranks it 4th overall in that time period.

If the ratings really were that bad, then it's hard to fault FOX for canceling it.

See, that's something that I will argue and that I will say is crap on behalf of Fox and other networks. Yeah, a new show came out, started building a small but loyal fan base in it's first few weeks but ended up getting yanked because that fan base was too small. But did it really need to be yanked?

Some of the best shows out there, some of the most beloved shows out there and some of the biggest hits in TV history started out slow and ratings challenged. Granted, some shows are going to start out slow and ratings challenged and go downhill from there, but does that mean that the nets have to cancel or yank every freaking show by the second episode?

A new show in a timeslot that puts it against an established ratings winner is , 9 times out of 10, going to take a beating. But if you leave it on long enough for channel surfing due to repeats of the other shows, sometimes a new show catches on. One of my all time favorite TV shows is M*A*S*H*. It died in the ratings in its first season. Cheers anyone? Star Trek anyone?

Fox started out as the little network that could because it didn't pull the trigger on a lot of shows that it would flush in a heartbeat these days. If Fox was run then the way it is now, X-Files, Married With Children and The Simpsons would likely be D.O.A. in season one. NBC in the 80's pulled out of its ratings slump by putting on good shows and giving them the time to find an audience.

What ever happened to network program directors and executives who think like that?

The night of the two-hour premiere, I made a joking phone call to a friend of mine, and I told him that this show had three strikes against it:

1. It's on FOX.

2. It's actually a pretty good show.

3. My friend and I were watching it from the beginning, and we both liked it.

Apparently I was more correct than I would like to admit.

I didn't watch it, so I can't really comment as to its quality, but the thing that really gets me is... what are they going to put in that slot now? Reruns of House!

So it's not like they're pulling it to try out something new, they're just pulling it for the sake of pulling it. There's no plan here, just random acts of stupidity.

Is there any network that might make a decent fit for Drive? I know this is the ultimate long shot. I thought the same thing when Firefly was canceled (I still wish Sci-Fi would have stepped up for that one).

It has happened, though. Family Guy got new life through Comedy Central reruns and DVD sales, The Hogan Family was canceled at NBC and picked up by CBS, even Laurence Welk got cancelled by ABC and then survived in syndication. Life after cancelation is rare, though.

24 is still on Fox, and 24 is awesome, therefore it invalidates your argument.

Okay, I'll admit, the tail end of 24 Season 6 has been pretty weak, but the point still remains.

Well this is the same who couldn't properly promote Justice, Victor Garber coming off Alias, CSI meets Law and Order, and they couldn't keep it in a timeslot that could get viewers.

Pulling the plug on Wedding Bells or Justice makes some sort of sense... they are ongoing series, no specific end. From what I've heard about the premise of Drive, it could have a planned end, the race is over eventually just like for example Daybreak. If you are going to approve a series like this how about approve the whole thing.. say I'll give you a 2 hour pilot and an order for 11 episodes.. we will know by episode 5 or so if we are going to wrap it up as a completely story in 13 episodes or continue for the rest of the season. See Reunion. :)

Eventually they are going to have to have something to watch besides 24, America's Most Wanted, American Idol, and Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader (which if you are asking that question about Fox Executives.. the answer is no)

Until later
John

"Yup, I remember Beans Baxter, Werewolf, Brimstone, and Herman's Head, for that matter. :)"

...and 'The Tick'! Don't forget 'The Tick'!

Hooper

You'd think that, before pulling the plug, FOX'd give the go-ahead for a two-hour wrap-up. This way they'd have a complete story arc to put out on DVD.

Oh, sure, it's not a perfect solution, but at least you'd have a conclusion, and FOX'd be able to recoup their investment in the DVD set and limited syndication.

BTW: I second the motion that all continuing storyline series should have a contract guaranteeing the producers the chance to complete their current arc.

I'm reminded of a quote from when "Family Guy" returned to the airwaves...

Peter: Everybody I've got bad news. We've been cancelled.
Lois: Oh no Peter! How could they do that?
Peter: Well unfortuantely Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that FOX has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonder Falls, Fast Lane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girl's Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda At Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddy, The Street, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, And Greg The Bunny....
Lois: Is there no hope?
Peter: Well I suppose if ALL those shows go down the tubes we might have a shot.

I wasn't happy to see "Dark Angel" go myself, and to a lesser extent "Titus." "The Street" had potential. They had a good show called "Strange Luck" on the network in the timeslot either before or after "The X-Files" years ago and got rid of it after a single season. Their treatment of "Futurama" was just criminal. As Matt Groening said, "It was frustrating to have a show on Fox at 7 on Sunday night when Fox's slogan was 'The fun begins at 8!'"

IIRC, in the first season of "24" the show was critically acclaimed but the ratings were disappointing. In that case, in a rare display of patience, Fox brought it back for another season, and that's when it began to pay off for them. You would hope that they'd learn not only from only other networks' histories with shows that took a while to catch on, but their own as well.

Meanwhile, somehow the lame (judging from the YouTube clip I saw) Fox News knockoff of the Daily Show is attracting enough viewers to *avoid* cancellation. Quality shows die, sub-par shows survive. Sad.

But lest we blame Fox too much---look at that list of cancelled shows, ratings losers all. Then look at what people are watching.

Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader probably costs less to make per episode than any minute of Drive. And yeah, you get what you pay for but I doubt that any network can ignore the bottom line for very long.

I think one of the problems Drive had was that it had to overcome the perception that it was going to be a mindless chase drama. Word of mouth should have built up a following but given the likely cost of the show I don't know how long they could have waited. The show would have had to double it's ratings and it would still have fewer viewers than the show that follows it.

All that said, it's pretty sad when so much potential dies while so much crap goes on and on...

I can't believe that ANYONE is surprised by this. Drive was doomed before the first commercial for it ever aired.

I mean, a Tim Minear show on Fox? They shouldn't have even bothered naming it. Just called it "The Canceled Show starring Cancel and and Cancelsons."

SEAN

Well, I have to say that the ads did absolutely nothing for me. If it was a good show, I'm sorry that it got cancelled, but none of the promotion for it got me interested at all. My wife and I actually lamented how uninterested we were because we wanted to support a Nathan Fillon show.

Eric

And one of their worst cancellations in recent years...Tru Calling. They didn't even air the second season until months after they were filmed. It didn't get good enough ratings the first season (I wonder why...they had it running against the last season of Friends). And they kept the X-Files on and cancelled Brisco when they both did the same on the Nielsons the year before. Unfortunately, Brisco had the bad luck to be viewed and counted for acts of violence by a parents group. The episode they counted was one having to do with boxing. Let's not only hit Fox, CBS cancelled American Gothic early on, and also killed the Flash after one season (putting it up against number one Cosby at that time). Tru Calling was really coming into it's own, at the end of the first season, and into the measley six episodes they ordered of season two. Oh, and yes, I loved Brimstone and the Tick also. I wish Sci-Fi and TNT would save more shows :)

"FOX isn't a public service to provide quality programming, FOX is a network that has to make money. They weren't going to make any with Drive."

You know, Keith, for someone who makes his living writing novels based on quality shows that were canceled despite great potential, I would have thought you'd be less myopic.

PAD

Fox hyped this sucker like crazy for about six months! I remember not being able to watch even a Simpsons rerun without seeing three or four ads for Drive each break.

You can't say Fox didn't stand behind this show. They hyped it and hyped it. And no one watched it.

I sorta knew it would happen. It was overkill before the first episode even aired.

I think we indeed are seeing the "I'll wait for the trades" mentality happening with television. Boxed sets of a season are hitting the shelves usually around the time the next season begins airing, and not everybody has a Tivo or DVR -- and many of those that do still don't get around to watching the shows in anything like a timely manner.

I've thought for a while now that someone, somewhere, is going to start developing episodic dramas strictly for the DVD market, bypassing television altogether.

I know, for myself, when watching the commercials for Drive, I found myself asking "is there enough there for a series". To me, the concept seemed better for a movie than a multi-season series...but I admit I did not watch the actual show. And speaking of cancelled show, the lost Mercy CoveReef (?) (the Aquaman pilot) is now airing on AOl in2tv, so you can see what might have been....it's listed as just the Aquaman pilot

Not again - but, obviously, I should have known better.

I will miss Drive. I like the series and my husband also got into it very quickly. I know, he will be very disappointed and angry at US TV politics again when I tell him what I have just learned.

The problem with US television is, people have no patience at all and give a show a chance. If it is not an instant success it gets kicked, no matter what potential it has. Do people really want a TV landscape consisting of low budget reality shows, sitcoms and plenty of repeats?

Here'e the link to the Aquaman pilot for those of you interested:

http://video.aol.com/video-category/aquaman/2816

enjoy!

The thing I don't understand is that when it comes to Network tv even the worst rated show would be dominant if you put it on cable. For example, FOX's own cable network shows The Shield which is a critical daring and has been on for five or six seasons. The recent premiere drew 2.3 million viewer, which was up from last year. Now take Drive, the premiere drew 5.66 million viewers. If they moved Drive to FX just 50% of the audience came back that would be one of the strongest shows on cable. Why doesn't any one of the cable networks ever scavenge cancelled network shows and build them into signature shows for their network? Budget issues?

(On a slight tangent, I get why you have to pay for HBO, but they don't show commercials. Yet I pay for basic cable AND they hit me with the same commercials that supposedly make Network tv free? How does that work?)

I'm not surprised at all. First instead of doing a run of 13 episodes they decided that they would split it up by having 6 here at the end of the season and then the rest (presumably) in the fall. Then it is another Tim Minear show up against the bloody Dancing with the Network Stars plus the suitcase show. Of course the ratings only count ratings families who is watching a show live. Drive, having a two-hour premiere and a third hour the next day definitely would lend itself more to being watched later on tape or DVR. Having three hours in one week, and then cancelling after hour 4 the next week is not showing any patience at all or allowing for any word of mouth to build.

They are putting House repeats on instead the next few weeks (per Futon Critic FOX May sweeps article http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20070425fox02_

Neil

> I am the only sci-fi fan in the world who wasn't impressed with Firefly.

No. Blame the way the idiots at the network showed it out of sequence, but it utterly failed to grab me and I dropped it pretty quick.

> Wonderfalls, ... Sliders, V.R. 5

V.R. 5 also failed to really grab me, although I gave it more of a shot than FIREFLY. SLIDERS? It lasted at least three if not four seasons - so hardly a quick death - and deserved to die when they replaced John Rhys-Davies' character with the supposedly competent military type who rapidly devolved into the obligatory bimbo. That killed me off it before it was pulled off the air.

WONDERFALLS was a variation on QUANTUM LEAP which was annoying to me because, instead of a neurological hologram giving the character fairly precise instructions (ie person 'a' will die in a car crash on 'x 'date, you have to prevent it) we have a supposedly all-knowing 'force' making with obscure comments next to which the Vorlons were the masters of clarity. Any military commanding officer who gave such unclear orders would be demoted in a hurry. People wrote that off as being the central character having premonitions and then feeling a need to act on them. OK, I could buy that. But that she then argues with herself about it, and via the intermediary of inanimate objects? That, in the words of the theme, tips me right over the edge.

>I second the motion that all continuing storyline series should have a contract guaranteeing the producers the chance to complete their current arc.

That won't necessarily work. STARGATE: SG1 had a 4-year guarantee from the studio before going into production. Didn't help me as they then seemed to show them in random order, shifting from night to night, and then having seemingly interminable reruns. It wasn't until a friend egged me into getting the DVD sets (I now have all but the current season) that I realized it was much better than the network's broadcast practices made it seem to be. Heck, there were actual story arcs!

>And one of their worst cancellations in recent years...Tru Calling. They didn't even air the second season until months after they were filmed.... CBS ... also killed the Flash after one season.

I watched some of TRU CALLING and agree it wasn't bad. When you could find it. I was taping it for a friend in Japan at the time and wasn't even aware there was a second season until after the fact. Ditto THE FLASH. One needed to hire a bounty hunter to try to locate it as CBS moved it around from night to night, and time slot to time slot. "It couldn't find an audience" complained the twits at CBS. Uh, how about letting it sit in ONE PLACE and having the audience find it?

As for cancelled shows ... JAG was cancelled partway through one season, then went on for another nine seasons on another network.

> Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader probably costs less to make per episode than any minute of Drive.

Precisely. Network observers have flat-out stated that, though ratings are down for 'reality shows', they're still around because the network can get them on the air for peanuts compared to many of their other shows. Thus PROBE, MURPHY'S LAW and others disappear in their first season, while drek such as SURVIVOR goes on and on and on and ...

Does anyone out there know if Heroes is returning next season? All the commercials now just say "x more episodes", and not "of the season"...Also, anyone looking for a great show that seems to keep going, check out FX June 12th for the fourth season of Rescue Me. I didn't start watching until last season, but got hooked very fast. It's a show that makes you say, "I can't believe they can show that on commercial tv"

When I first heard about the cancellation I thought, well this is what I get for not telling my friends and getting them to watch but then I remembered that it was Fox and I know where the blame lies.

Maybe CW will pick it up.

I believe they've got a comitment for a second full season of HEROES.

As to Heroes, I believe that NBC made the commitment for a second season VERY early. No one is sure now because NBC renewed it that long ago...like when Studio 60 still had a real chance to go on.

As to another network picking up Drive, I think it would only be possible if the new guys managed to get the DVD rights from Fox with the rest of the show. Form everything I've heard, that's where the real money is nowadays. Without that, anybody picking up the show is REALLY shooting themselves in the foot, putting all the money into making the thing but not getting anything back AND channeling money at Fox for when the DVD finally comes out. I think I heard that that was one of the final nails in Angel's coffin (no pun intended) but I can't be sure anymore.

Disappointing news, but at least I didn't get a chance to love it; I only watch about 2 hours of tv a week as is, so this is one less hour for me to spend.

I had reservations about this show from the get-go, as soon as the mysteries began cropping up. It brought back too many bad memories of Lost.

"You can't say Fox didn't stand behind this show. They hyped it and hyped it. And no one watched it."

Then they should consider keeping the show and firing the people in charge of the hype.

I have to say, the commercials--as numerous as they were--gave me zero idea of the quality of the series. Quality? I wasn't even clear on what the show was about. I had no intention of watching it until one day I suddenly said, "Wait a minute...is that Nathan?" The only reason I watched it was because of him.

Quantity of advertising means nothing if the quality isn't there.

PAD

Minear should have known as soon as they cleared such a high budget that Drive was doomed. I think if you look at some of the unlikely-to-survive-but-have-thrived shows, they tend to have small budgets. Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica come to mind. They spend, what, half a million per episode, but make it look really good and make it hard for the network to bother with cancellation. If I were a producer shopping anything but a gameshow or reality program and they offered me more than a million per episode I'd probably walk. Or just not get my hopes up.

And the whole ratings system seems deeply flawed. Do many people even watch TV as it airs anymore? There are so many ways to avoid commercials and watch when it's convenient. I don't have Tivo but I still tape the few shows I actually watch for later viewings, and have done so since I first got a VCR in high school. Add in online viewings and those Nielson numbers just become increasingly meaningless.

The last thing I saw was that Heroes was returning next year. Hopefully the last several episodes will 'sensibly' wrap up the main story.

As for Drive. I wasn't sure I was interested in it until I read a review in my local paper. It got a good write-up and I decided to watch it. (Due to other things I missed the first 75 minutes of the premier, but my wife was watching so it wasn't a complete loss.) I thought it was interesting and they were going in a good direction.

Some one at Fox needs to be betten with a stick.

I want Greg the Bunny back!

I have to say, the commercials--as numerous as they were--gave me zero idea of the quality of the series. Quality? I wasn't even clear on what the show was about. I had no intention of watching it until one day I suddenly said, "Wait a minute...is that Nathan?" The only reason I watched it was because of him.

Ditto.

I only found out what the show was really about after I read a news paper bit on it. Fox's ad people did nothing clearly show people what the show was before it came on. The ads were all as generic actiony and bland as possible.

Greg, the Independant Film Channel carries new episodes of Greg the Bunny. It's not quite the same show, and more raw than what was on network TV, to be sure.

Making comparisons to Heroes is kinda odd because it was a ratings success from the start, but I'm going to make a comparison to Heroes.

One thing that NBC did that I think is really smart is putting the episodes online. For a serial show, this seems like a great idea to me. It lets anyone who misses an episode catch up. They've also had marathons on Sci-Fi, to help others else catch up who might not have noticed it on the internet.

I think that kind of stuff is something that should change the way networks think about TV shows. If a highly serial show like Drive doesn't catch on right away, that doesn't mean it's screwed because new fans can't come into the show.

Earlier this TV season, my wife started watching Kidnapped. I saw bits of it while recording and editing it, and it seemed well made, well acted, and had a compelling, interesting story to it. Before 6 episodes had aired, it was gone.

This season seems to have been particularly harsh, with a lot of serialized shows not making it past the first few episodes. I'm sure part of the reason why Drive was canned so quickly was because of the high cost. With such low ratings, it never would have been able to charge much for advertising time.

Still, with so much invested in the show, you'd think there's be some way they could lower the production costs and shoot for a May sweeps ratings boost.

I'm sure starting so late in the season didn't help. With the weather supposed to warm up, fewer people are going to want to get sucked in to a show that keeps them from the great outdoors.

Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica come to mind. They spend, what, half a million per episode, but make it look really good and make it hard for the network to bother with cancellation.

Alex, IIRC JMS wrote at the time that an episode of B5 cost about 1 million dollars to make and that was ten years ago. I have no idea what BSG costs but if they're making episodes of a scifi show of that quality for half a million a pop, then everyone with an idea for a scifi series needs throw their (metaphorical) virgins daughters at Ronald Moore or do whatever else it takes for him to divulge the secret of how he makes a show that good with actors that good for that little money.

I have to say, the commercials--as numerous as they were--gave me zero idea of the quality of the series. Quality? I wasn't even clear on what the show was about. I had no intention of watching it until one day I suddenly said, "Wait a minute...is that Nathan?" The only reason I watched it was because of him.

My experience was exactly the same, except I managed to not see commercials for Drive until about a week before it aired. I wouldn't have even seen that but for the fact that I'm a recent House convert so I'm recording/watching "live" both new and old episodes in any time-slot they air. I was mostly ignoring an inane looking commercial that seemed to be for Fast and the Furious, the Series, when I saw Nathan. So I said, "Okay, I'll program the show into my DVR and give it a chance." But seeing his face was the ONLY reason that I even noticed the commercials.

Re: Sliders. The reason I included Sliders was because FOX ruined that one (changed the show in season 3--more action, less plot, they ran Tracy Torme', the man behind Sliders, & one of the key actors away). They just didn't give the show the creative freedom it needed & deserved. Typical FOX.

Re: Wonderfalls. It was definitly NOT like Quantum Leap. Nothing like it (sure she was helping people, sometimes, but she wasn't traveling through time and the tone of the show was VERY different). If your going to compare it to ANYTHING, then it was more like Joan of Arcadia, expect instead of God it was an unknown force guiding the main character to help people.

AND Wonderfalls was much funnier/quirker then Joan.

Thankfully Wonderfalls was released on DVD and on dvd, it was a very complete package. No cliffhanger at the end. Actually, it had a good place to end there. Very rare..

Anyway, back to Drive, it really sucks that FOX canceled it. But I guess thats FOX for you...

I've decided to not give any more new series from FOX a chance (ya, I've said that before, but I mean it this time). At least until I know the show is coming back for a second season. I can always catch the first season on DVD (or reruns)!

I'm definitly going to do the same with CBS, if Jericho is canceled (I really, really, really hope not. such a good show).

DF2506

"Earlier this TV season, my wife started watching Kidnapped. I saw bits of it while recording and editing it, and it seemed well made, well acted, and had a compelling, interesting story to it. Before 6 episodes had aired, it was gone."

Yes, excellent series. Smart.

"I've decided to not give any more new series from FOX a chance"

One has to wonder how many people made this same resolution after, say, Firefly or Tru Calling was canceled, and thus didn't tune in for Drive.

First The Black Donnellys in cancelled and now Drive? April certainly is NOT a good tv month for me. At least you can get the black donnelly eps which didnt air but were shot online...as to airing the last eps of Drive remain to be seen

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

I should've known. It's the old "fool me once..." scenario. Never trust Fox to give a series a true chance to get a audience. Now how do I explain to the 10 people I turned onto this show?

One thing I tend to brag about entirely too much is that I've had several conversations with actor Cotter Smith, who played Tru's father on Tru Calling. I asked him about the "Tru Calling" cancellation, and what he told me really surprised me. He said that Fox had already fully made the deal for a Tru Calling Season Two. So, when they pulled it after only four or five episodes, they had to pay the fee to cancel the contract. In other words, Fox paid a huge amount of money in order to NOT see the second season through to completion.

When he told me that, I just couldn't believe it. "Idiots" seems pretty on-the-mark.

Hooper wrote:

"Yup, I remember Beans Baxter, Werewolf, Brimstone, and Herman's Head, for that matter. :)"

...and 'The Tick'! Don't forget 'The Tick'!

"...SPOOON!"

Does anyone out there know if Heroes is returning next season? All the commercials now just say "x more episodes", and not "of the season"...

Rest asured, a second season of "Heroes" is guaranteed.

The last thing I saw was that Heroes was returning next year. Hopefully the last several episodes will 'sensibly' wrap up the main story.

It's been confirmed also that this season will wrap the major storylines and next season will present a all-new adventure.

I had reservations about this show from the get-go, as soon as the mysteries began cropping up. It brought back too many bad memories of Lost.

"Lost" has become a big cautionary tale. After it, I very much doubt any show will be so niggardly with its secrets and so slow in plot advancement. They've crossed the line from mysterious to confusing and people will be slow to forgive them for that.

I've read an article about how the guys from "Heroes" and "Jericho" and "Battlestar Galactica" and "Prison Break" all promised their shows will not keep their secrets overlong.

Posted by PAD:

"I have to say, the commercials--as numerous as they were--gave me zero idea of the quality of the series. Quality? I wasn't even clear on what the show was about. I had no intention of watching it until one day I suddenly said, "Wait a minute...is that Nathan?" The only reason I watched it was because of him.

Quantity of advertising means nothing if the quality isn't there."

I didn't watch Drive for this exact reason, Peter. I definitely considered giving the show a shot for Nathan, but those commercial spots were balls.

Argh!!!!

Like many Firefly fans, I started watching because of Nathan. However, most of the viewing public didn't know Firefly existed, so I'm not surprised Fox pulled it after a few anemic shows.

At least 24 and Heroes are still on.

I'm rather surprised people are saying the commercials were a problem.

For months I saw commercials that said Drive was about an illegal cross country road race. That's the primary plot, and every commercial said that.

What makes the show interesting is the reasons that people are in the race. I saw commercial after commercial where Fillion threw a guy onto a table and asked where his kidnapped wife was. I thought it was fairly clear that he forced into the race by people who had kidnapped his wife.

Commercials aren't an exact science. All I remember about the original commercials for Heroes is that people were getting super powers. If you had showed me both sets of commercials before the shows aired, I'd have had to guess which campaign would work better, because I don't see any fundamental problems with either.

I find it tremendously disappointing that many shows with interesting, offbeat concepts and serial storytelling are cancelled, and your usual, boring, unoriginal cop/family/doctor/lawyer/detective drama with neat-storyline-nicely-wrapped-up-after-40-minutes will thrive.

But we should blame the public too. Most people just want "more of the same".

Thanks PAD for saving me some trouble. I coach my daughters softball team and between work and coaching, I have not had time to watch my Tivo episodes of Drive. Now I know that I can avoid heartbreak by just deleting them and never getting hooked. I agree with you on the FOX network whole heartedly.

"Earlier this TV season, my wife started watching Kidnapped. I saw bits of it while recording and editing it, and it seemed well made, well acted, and had a compelling, interesting story to it. Before 6 episodes had aired, it was gone."

At least with Kidnapped, NBC did put all 13 episodes online and it was a complete story. They wrapped up just about everything there, though they left a clear opening for another series had that been granted.

On the flipside of this was Vanished from FOX. That was also cancelled quickly, but had a more confusing tangled plot. They ran the remaining episodes online, but with the final episode (#13 again, I think) it seemed they just stopped it without wrapping up anything. The only thing they gave away was who were the main people behind the conspiracy. Everything else felt like they didn't make any attempt to wrap it up. While Kidnapped was quite worthwhile seeing it to conclusion (and if you haven't seen it yet, you can also now [or soon] get it on DVD), Vanished was a waste of time.

ABC had a self-contained 13 episode series, Day Break, which they limited to just online after a few episodes. That was great and also well worth trying to see to its conclusion online.

So, im summary, NBC and ABC, even though they cancelled some good shows at least ran them to a worthwhile conclusion online. FOX has failed in this respect and appears to be doing so again in this case.

Neil

By the way, I just check the FOX Drive website at http://www.fox.com/drive/ and it says "final 2 episodes to air this summer stay tuned." So, at least those episodes may air, but since FOX split it up into 6 episodes and then 7 later, we'll be stuck with an incomplete story. You can see the scripts of the first four episodes at http://www.timminear.net/archives/drive/000146.html
Note that Tim Minear says that "Beware, though: Due to some changes in the editing suite, some scenes that were written for Episodes 103 and 104 were shifted to later episodes. So there are BIG plot spoilers ahead." With any luck more of the scripts will appear there and maybe Tim Minear will tell us how he planned to wrap things up in the remaining 7 episodes.

Neil

My most "Why'd Fox cancel that???" show is PROFIT. This was the closest television has ever come to OTHELLO, as James Profit (played with perfect controlled malelovence by Adrian Pasdar, currently playing Nathan Petrelli on HEROES) managed to scheme, manipulate, and maneuver his way in the company Grayson and Grayson. It was twisted and brilliant, and unlike AMERICAN GOTHIC it features a villain who was human and fallible.

Fox canned it so quickly the final episodes never got aired. When I'd gotten my VHS copy, the last eps had French subtitles since they came from Canada. Sigh. At least it's on DVD now.

Bill Mulligan asked, "PAD, is it possible that we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous "I'll wait for the trades", only now for TV?"

Wouldn't surprise me, Bill. I wrote a column earlier this year entitled "Are DVDs Changing the Way We Watch TV?", in which I noted changes in viewing habits, especially my own.

One of the people I interviewed was a university marketing professor who said living patterns have changed, and one pattern that's become the norm is that of people preferring to watch DVDs over first run shows.

I also interviewed a co-worker who doesn't watch much TV (mainly because he has young kids), but when he does, more often than not, it's on DVD. His theory: With the hectic pace of many people's lives, sitting down at a specific hour to watch a specific show is no longer an option.

In recent years, I also tended to watch more DVDs than first-run shows. In the 2003-2004 TV season, I only watched three first-run shows, but still spent a lot of time in front of my TV. Most of that time I watched DVDs from my home library.

Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I'd liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I'd buy the Firefly DVD set one day.

Likewise, I bought Neverwhere without having seen an episode. Since I don't have cable, I never had an opportunity to do so (assuming it was ever on a cable channel in my area). I bought it on the strength of Neil Gaiman's reputation as a writer.

I'm probably not alone in that respect, either. I'm sure people have bought DVD sets based on either the premise or involvement of particular people (whether behind or in front of the camera), or some other factor(s).

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I'd previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR's no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

I concluded my column with this statement: "The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?

Time will tell."

And so it will. It'll be interesting to see what people's viewing habits are like a decade from now. Will there be more direct-to-DVD TV shows? We already have direct-to-DVD movies? Granted, some are probably very bad and never had a prayer of making it to theaters; but others, like the new Babylon 5 project, The Lost Tales, are marketed for direct DVD release from the get-go. Perhaps a decade from now a show like Drive will go direct to DVD.

If so, expect to see a lot more product placement, if not actual advertisements, included with the series.

Rick

P.S. I never saw a frame of Firefly when it was on the air because I deliberately didn't watch it. Not because I was waiting for the DVD (I didn't yet own a DVD player, and didn't have any thoughts along those lines.) I didn't watch it because I felt sure I'd like it, and I wanted to cut back on my TV viewing. Which was easier when I didn't have a DVD library.

I also didn't watch Drive. The premise didn't interest me (and doesn't), but I agree with PAD that FOX seems to cancel shows too quickly. I might still have never watched it, but "TheJohnWilson" has a point. A show about a race is obviously structured to have an end. The network should have agreed to approve the series as a whole, with the caveat that whether it's a six, 13 or 22-episode series would depend on how well it did in the ratings. If it does well, it goes a whole season. If it does poorly, it becomes a mini-series.

Of course the writers would have had to structure the show in such a way that it could both logically wrap up in six episodes and logically continue for 13 or 22. But I'm sure they could've done that.

P.P.S. Amy Acker was in Drive? If I'd known, I might've tuned in at least once.

I am the only sci-fi fan in the world who wasn't impressed with Firefly.

No. But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn't impressed with Heroes. I like it how I like McDonald's: its a guilty pleasure that has no nourishment value.

My feeling is:
1. They're basically watered-down X-Men.
2. I don't feel invested in any of the characters. They all feel like rag-dolls without any depth or nuance, propped up with barely-plausible motivations and convenient character traits in order to advance the plot.

I thought Drive had a fun sort of Jerry Bruckenheimer vibe, the disclaimer being that I am an unabashed Browncoat Fillion-supporter. However, Fox is the one paying the bills and it is their prerogative to cut their losses on an investment at their discretion. I do wish that they would take a more patient approach with Drive & Firefly, but such is life...

"But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn't impressed with Heroes."

You mean people are actually IMPRESSED by it? I like your analogy. I watch it, but of all the shows I watch, it's the least impressive. And that includes American Idol.

For those looking for a (non-sci fi) Fillion fix, his new movie, "Waitress" is going into limited release next week.

Well, I avoided "Drive" because it looked like the Fox version of "Death Race 2000" or "Battle Royale" with cars. But it's not like Fox is the only network canceling quality shows. Look at what ABC did to Donny Osmond and "The Great American Dream Competition" or whatever it was called; it only got one episode, and we didn't get to see much of the guy with the chicken theme park. And you will probably be able to count the episodes of the new "Bingo Night America" show on one hand.

Quality programming? The networks can't even keep schlock on the air any more! With the possible exception of "Desperate Housewives."

RE: Heroes

Although there are some characters on Heroes who they haven't developed as well, Hiro and the cheerleader to me are very well developed and likable. I think of it as a show that isn't trying to payoff every week, only for the whole storyline. I think this show will shine even stronger on DVD when you can watch it straight through. And a special "yay" to Stan Lee and Marvel Productions for supporting the show (with Lee's guest appearance, and NBC giving the special sneak preview of Spider-Man 3).

Count me as one of the people who has been impressed with Heroes. I think one of the things that has helped it gather ratings is that NBC has been able to build a synergistic relationship with the Sci-Fi Channel since they're now part of the same parent company. Airing repeast episodes of Heroes on Sci-Fi has proven to be a brilliant move.

I have to say, I missed Drive altogether and I can't say that I'm surprised Fox axed it. I'm at the point that I don't even want to bother getting attached to a Fox show because it will die a short death anything. That's ironic, since they kept the X-Files cash cow going long after Chris Carter had run out of ideas.

As for 24 this season, I'll say it: Jack Bauer has strapped on the waterskis and Chloe is revving up the powerpoint.

RE: 24

I agree with the waterski's comment. Although I think for this last partial season they are trying to go in a whole new direction, but there is still that definite taint of the first 16 or so episodes. I have not seen so much rehash of material on a show I liked in a long time. We can be thankful for five glorious seasons before now. How many shows have 5 great seasons. I think they heard the fans groaning for most of the season, and are doing a fixer-upper for the last stretch. Hopefully, they won't be afraid to have a non-President involved storyline next year. How about bringing back Elisa Cuthbert in a low cut top to star for next year?? I would be watching every week :)

Chloe is revving up the powerpoint.

Heh. You can tell I've been working in an office too long. I meant to say: "Chloe is revving up the power boat.

KRAD: "FOX isn't a public service to provide quality programming, FOX is a network that has to make money. They weren't going to make any with Drive."

PAD: You know, Keith, for someone who makes his living writing novels based on quality shows that were canceled despite great potential, I would have thought you'd be less myopic.

Conclusion: Fox, despite not making money on the show, should have at least kept it on long enough to leave behind a disenfranchised fan base that would serve as a consumer platform for genre novelists?

I never saw any of the advertisements for Drive. The entire series would have easily come and gone without my knowing it existed, had I not been told about it by my Firefly-loving sister.

MH

"Conclusion: Fox, despite not making money on the show, should have at least kept it on long enough to leave behind a disenfranchised fan base that would serve as a consumer platform for genre novelists?"

Uh, no...Fox should be able to look past short term ratings toward possible long-term gains.

PAD

.Fox should be able to look past short term ratings toward possible long-term gains.

Right! Just because a show costs a lot to make, and then because of lousy ratings means Fox is now in debt to it's advertisers, and just because it's shown no hint of improvement, or even the critical praise that can be used to offset it's bottoming numbers, that's no reason to dump it.

One has to wonder how many people made this same resolution after, say, Firefly or Tru Calling was canceled, and thus didn't tune in for Drive.

If there were enough people who felt like that to matter, Firefly and Tru Calling would have had enough ratings to stay on.

The problem with Fox is that the often seem like they're deliberately trying to kill a show, particularly if it's one that has a loyal, if small, fan base. They take a show that's supposed to have a progressive storyarc and show the episodes out of order. They move the show around the schedule seemingly at random. They give it a difficult timeslot. They take it off the air for weeks at a stretch so that they can show American Idol three nights a week.

And then they wonder why the show can't find an audience.

The heart of this whole debate is that none of us really knows who the Nielson's are, or what credentials they should have to be considered. In this day and age, don't they have the technology to get a wider base of viewers by getting the readings from our cable/satellite boxes, so that they get a true pulse of what we're watching? The whole thing brings to mind the episode of Alf where he rigs the Nielson box so that Polka Party becomes the number one show in America :)

Fox should be able to look past short term ratings toward possible long-term gains.
**************
SER: Unfortunately, I don't think FOX is in the position to do this. For instance, I actually think X-FILES wouldn't have made it past its first season in the current FOX world because its too high-profile a network now.

FOX has HOUSE and AMERICAN IDOL and THE SIMPSONS and 24 and BONES. Granted, I can understand the thinking that a successful network can afford to take chances that a struggling one can't, but it seems that it's more often the case that networks in the latter situation do.

And in fairness, I think that FOX put everything DRIVE (timeslot, promotion).

Networks can force feed people shows until they watch them if they want to. Remember when Family Guy started? Someone at Fox wanted the show to succeed so it was shown many times a week, and after high profile shows. Futurama (what I think was the best of all the animated) did make four seasons, but I never remember hardly ever seeing ads for it. So, yes, if a network exec wants a show to do well, they can engineer it to happen. For those out there who don't like to change the channel too often :)

FOX did a horrible job with Family Guy. They showed a little more patience with it than they have with some shows, but it didn't get good ratings and they cancelled it.

Then Cartoon Network made it popular. FOX gave up on the show, but CN ran it regularly and promoted it. Then the DVD sales were huge (which I think was largely due to the support of CN) and FOX realised they'd made a mistake and renewed the show.

Futurama wasn't handled well, either. It got constantly preempted by football in parts of the country, and the fans didn't consistenly know when it was going to be on. Matt Goening felt abandonded by FOX, saying that it was hard to promote a show that airs at 7 when FOX is pushing the slogan, "The fun begins at 8." Again, it took Cartoon Network to prove that the show could be successful if it was just promoted right and broadcast regularly.

and what of "King of the Hill" who was watching that thing to keep it on soo many seasons? Those damn Nielson boxes again...

There is some blame to go around. Once again, not enough of the American public tuned in to a creative program. The advertising didn't make the show seem overly intellectual, but it apparently didn't make it seem dumb enough for the "reality" show/junk TV crowd that seems to control most of the TV ratings and much of the box office these days.

But Fox's scheduling was highly questionable. What kind of ratings did they expect for a show which they were debuting with a short run in April? And the debuting three episodes within two days ploy seemed kind of odd with an established success like 24; premiering Drive this way was just strange, and probably a bad idea.

But, the most damning thing is - they canceled it after THREE WEEKS. Yeah, there's no chance it could ever possibly grow after such a long, substantial history of soft ratings... If they're making a significant financial investment in the show, why go at it so half-assed? At the very least, why not at least wait until after the planned initial six-episode run to make their determination? Never mind allowing a series to grow - by announcing the cancellation when they still have episodes to air just guarantees that they'll make less money on those programs. And three weeks, in a tough time slot (and with no lead-in), is in no way a large-enough sample for making this decision.

Speaking of Nielson boxes... Anyone know how to apply for one?

Maybe we should all sign up and get to keep the shows we want.

Futurama, Family Guy, Firefly, Titus, The Tick, The Lone Gunmen, Arrested Development and now Drive.

Son of a bitch.

As I asked in my e-mail to Fox after Firefly got the hook, why should I give any new show on their network a chance? Obviously, if it appeals to me and it's on Fox, it's doomed.

Fox, for me, effectively doesn't exist except on Sunday nights. I've watched House a couple of times, but it's not an appointment show for me. No Idol for me, thanks, and I already know I'm smarter than a fifth-grader. I've never wanted to make the commitment to 24 or Prison Break.

Heroes, I'm digging a lot.

Well it could be worse. Fox could be like HBO and cancel a successful series like Deadwood before the third season even began airing. Like HBO did a year ago. Timing seemed very curious to say the least.

Snurched from my own comments on KRAD's blog....

FOX did a pretty good job promoting the show so you cannot fault them for it. What I WILL fault them for is timing.

They premiered the show weeks before the May sweeps period so they in turn gave the show the shortest leash imaginable. The ratings forced them to cancel the show before sweeps - rerunning House is more reliable and cheaper during this period. (And actually Drive was going to end for the season on May 7th anyway).

I would have had them premiere the show at the beginning of the fall season, in the summer in a time slot of a established hit like 24 or House. That way least they could have more time to let the show sink in. Monday at 8pm was a dead zone (Prison Break was dropping big time the ratings when it left).

Given the promotion of course FOX wanted Drive to succeed. But this time they instead of being impatient they shot themselves in the foot.

And if I was Tim Minear, I would have wished he could have held out for a 13 week commitment like he had for Firefly, Wonderfalls and The Inside (they only filmed 6 eps). At least this way they could have been a DVD Box set that could have taken a substantial story arc and made a mini-series out of it.

>Hopefully the last several episodes will 'sensibly' wrap up the main story.

HEROES is designed to complete its main storyline this season, starting off next season with a new villain, new plot line and [partly] new characters.

> The problem with Fox is that the often seem like they're deliberately trying to kill a show

And, sometimes, movie franchises. Look at how they screwed around with X-MEN 3, driving the previous (and successful) director off the project, and giving his replacement a ridiculously short time to complete it.

>Wonderfalls. It was definitly NOT like Quantum Leap. Nothing like it (sure she was helping people, sometimes, but she wasn't traveling through time and the tone of the show was VERY different)

Close enough. Haven't seen Joan to compare, but both WONDER and QUANTUM dealt with individuals forced into circumstances beyond their control, and having to deal with peoples' problems due to some outside force interfering with their lives. The time travel element in LEAP was a gimmick which generally didn't change much about the basic plot, other than showing how things were back then as a contrast.

>Commercials aren't an exact science.

But some people are clearly better at it than others. Remember the terrific, Rube Goldbergian Honda Accord ad? Of the delightful TIME MACHINE teaser which started off as though it were a car commercial?

Actually from what I can tell from some of the trades, its not that the show tanked in the ratings, its how MUCH it tanked.

As I understand it, the show was sold to advertisers as a midseason replacement with expectations in the 5 peak ratings range. Usually (and I don't have any actual knowledge of the details for this show), advertisers are given a certain floor value, based on a 5 peak, the floor value is probably 3.5 ish.

If the ratings go below that value, the network usually has to give back to the advertisers, either in the form of cash, or free time on another show to make the viewership numbers, either way its less income.

This can be the difference when it comes to series with a rough start. As long as ratings stay above that floor, whatever it may be, the network can 'take a chance' and see where it goes, as they have their money made or at least are breaking even. As soon as it goes below that floor, thats where the problems start, because they are losing money immediately. When I heard that Drive was beaten by 2 sitcome re-runs, I knew we had a potential sub-floor situation.

As far as running it on FX, the cost per episode is probably too high to make it a value based on cable ad rates, although its POSSIBLE showing on both networks could have gotten the numbers up.

Also, someone mentioned DVR viewings don't count? Nielsens and Tivo at least have a partnership where shows viewed at least a given percentage within a certain time fram (1 week I think) do count to the ratings.

We could also go into a debate about self-fufilling prophecies but that dead horse was beaten over on Keith's blog.

Uh, no...Fox should be able to look past short term ratings toward possible long-term gains.

Peter, you are talking about throwing good money after bad by continuing to broadcast the show. The opportunity costs Fox was looking at were what made it untenable to continue with broadcasting the program. If the ratings weren't there, new viewers aren't going to suddenly be manufactured and the financial picture improve.

Fox did the right thing. Yeah, they have a habit of pulling the trigger quickly, but let's not forget that television is a business. Losing money hand over fist is a good way to lose that business. Fox did the right thing.

The heart of this whole debate is that none of us really knows who the Nielson's are, or what credentials they should have to be considered. In this day and age, don't they have the technology to get a wider base of viewers by getting the readings from our cable/satellite boxes, so that they get a true pulse of what we're watching?

Don't you think people would freak out if they knew the corporations could actually know what we are watching at any time? Wouldn't bug me--if they used my TV as a guide they would come to the inescapable conclusion that what the world needs now is MORE ZOMBIES! And that would be a good thing. But for those who tend to switch back and forth between Cinemax 10 (Marilyn Chambers Secret Fantasies 4: Electric Buggaloo) and Cinemax 12 (Taxi Cab Confessions 8: Nerds in Paradise) such oversight might be intimidating.

Honestly, I think this has a lot more to do with consumer tastes than has been previously mentioned here.

People love American Idol, though it's mind-numbingly cheesey.

People love Grey's Anatomy because it's accessible and zings out snappy one-liners. Even though medical dramas have been done before and they're already running out of plot-lines (how many times can you put a cast member or close-relation-to-a-cast-member in a life-or-death situation?)

People love Dancing with the Stars because...well I'm not sure why. I think it's because the stars have pre-existing fan bases and OK, i'll admit it; the dancers are pretty smoking-hot, wear skimpy outfits and sweat profusely.

Any given show's merits (as broad and subjective as that is) doesn't have nearly the correlation with success that many of us might wish for. The way to succeed, I think, really is to try and find and milk the lowest common denominator amongst viewing audiences.

Christine: You can't apply for a Nielsen box. They choose households at random and ask if they're interested in participating. If you were to contact A.C. Nielsen & Co. and ask to participate, I'm guessing you'd be put on a list meant to ensure that you were never approached.

I have a friend who worked at Arbitron for about six years, and when I told him my family had received Arbitron radio surveys in the mail, he said we shouldn't have been sent them because I knew (and had worked for two years with, for a different employer) an Arbitron employee. The ratings companies really don't want the sampling tainted or manipulated in any way, and if someone contacts them asking to participate in their surveys, they have to assume that person has an ulterior motive of some sort.

It's also worth mentioning on the "where shows go to die".

If Fox hadn't been willing to try them out, the shows never would have lived in the first place.

Just testing, to see if my posts go through. Been having trouble lately.

Rick

O.K., that last test post went through, so I'll give this one a try again. I originally tried to send it last night, and again this morning, but it got caught in the filter both times. Maybe this time it'll get through. Two posts I made in the last few minutes did.

If it does get through, PAD, please tell Glenn not to bother with trying to get the earlier attempts posted.

Rick

Bill Mulligan asked, "PAD, is it possible that we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous "I'll wait for the trades", only now for TV?"

Wouldn't surprise me, Bill. I wrote a column earlier this year entitled "Are DVDs Changing the Way We Watch TV?", in which I noted changes in viewing habits, especially my own.

One of the people I interviewed was a university marketing professor who said living patterns have changed, and one pattern that's become the norm is that of people preferring to watch DVDs over first run shows.

I also interviewed a co-worker who doesn't watch much TV (mainly because he has young kids), but when he does, more often than not, it's on DVD. His theory: With the hectic pace of many people's lives, sitting down at a specific hour to watch a specific show is no longer an option.

In recent years, I also tended to watch more DVDs than first-run shows. In the 2003-2004 TV season, I only watched three first-run shows, but still spent a lot of time in front of my TV. Most of that time I watched DVDs from my home library.

Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I'd liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I'd buy the Firefly DVD set one day.

Likewise, I bought Neverwhere without having seen an episode. Since I don't have cable, I never had an opportunity to do so (assuming it was ever on a cable channel in my area). I bought it on the strength of Neil Gaiman's reputation as a writer.

I'm probably not alone in that respect, either. I'm sure people have bought DVD sets based on either the premise or involvement of particular people (whether behind or in front of the camera), or some other factor(s).

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I'd previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR's no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

I concluded my column with this statement: "The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?

Time will tell."

And so it will. It'll be interesting to see what people's viewing habits are like a decade from now. Will there be more direct-to-DVD TV shows? We already have direct-to-DVD movies? Granted, some are probably very bad and never had a prayer of making it to theaters; but others, like the new Babylon 5 project, The Lost Tales, are marketed for direct DVD release from the get-go. Perhaps a decade from now a show like Drive will go direct to DVD.

If so, expect to see a lot more product placement, if not actual advertisements, included with the series.

Rick

P.S. I never saw a frame of Firefly when it was on the air because I deliberately didn't watch it. Not because I was waiting for the DVD (I didn't yet own a DVD player, and didn't have any thoughts along those lines.) I didn't watch it because I felt sure I'd like it, and I wanted to cut back on my TV viewing. Which was easier when I didn't have a DVD library.

I also didn't watch Drive. The premise didn't interest me (and doesn't), but I agree with PAD that FOX seems to cancel shows too quickly. I might still have never watched it, but "TheJohnWilson" has a point. A show about a race is obviously structured to have an end. The network should have agreed to approve the series as a whole, with the caveat that whether it's a six, 13 or 22-episode series would depend on how well it did in the ratings. If it does well, it goes a whole season. If it does poorly, it becomes a mini-series.

Of course the writers would have had to structure the show in such a way that it could both logically wrap up in six episodes and logically continue for 13 or 22. But I'm sure they could've done that.

P.P.S. Amy Acker was in Drive? If I'd known, I might've tuned in at least once.

"Peter, you are talking about throwing good money after bad by continuing to broadcast the show. The opportunity costs Fox was looking at were what made it untenable to continue with broadcasting the program. If the ratings weren't there, new viewers aren't going to suddenly be manufactured and the financial picture improve."

Congratulations. With an attitude like that, you'd be an ideal Fox exec.

PAD

I've been trying to get a post through the filter without success since last night. Yet two recent posts made it through. So, maybe the one I'm failing to get through is too long. I'll try breaking it into segments.

PAD, if this works, please let Glenn know he doesn't need to spend time trying to get my previous attempts posted.

Anyway, here we go. Part 1:

Bill Mulligan asked, "PAD, is it possible that we are beginning to see a kind of parallel to the infamous "I'll wait for the trades", only now for TV?"

Wouldn't surprise me, Bill. I wrote a column earlier this year entitled "Are DVDs Changing the Way We Watch TV?", in which I noted changes in viewing habits, especially my own.

One of the people I interviewed was a university marketing professor who said living patterns have changed, and one pattern that's become the norm is that of people preferring to watch DVDs over first run shows.

I also interviewed a co-worker who doesn't watch much TV (mainly because he has young kids), but when he does, more often than not, it's on DVD. His theory: With the hectic pace of many people's lives, sitting down at a specific hour to watch a specific show is no longer an option.

In recent years, I also tended to watch more DVDs than first-run shows. In the 2003-2004 TV season, I only watched three first-run shows, but still spent a lot of time in front of my TV. Most of that time I watched DVDs from my home library.

Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I'd liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I'd buy the Firefly DVD set one day.

Likewise, I bought Neverwhere without having seen an episode. Since I don't have cable, I never had an opportunity to do so (assuming it was ever on a cable channel in my area). I bought it on the strength of Neil Gaiman's reputation as a writer.

I'm probably not alone in that respect, either. I'm sure people have bought DVD sets based on either the premise or involvement of particular people (whether behind or in front of the camera), or some other factor(s).

Part 2:

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I'd previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR's no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

I concluded my column with this statement: "The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?

Time will tell."

Part 2:

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I'd previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR's no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

I concluded my column with this statement: "The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?

Time will tell."

Part 2:

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? Obviously not with regard to shows I'd previously watched first-run, but with some current shows, I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

True, I could, in theory, tape it and watch it later; but my VCR's no longer very reliable when it comes to tuning in stations. I found that out awhile back when I tried taping Smallville and Supernatural because I had to be some place that particular Thursday.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

O.K., I don't know what's going on now. Part 1 got through, but two separate attempts to send part 2 failed. I don't get it. Especially since part 2 is of a shorter length.

Rick

I just find it hard to swallow that airing a show for all of 3-4 weeks, and calling it a failure, is giving said show a fair shake.

Yeah, some shows do build an audience over time. These guys know that very few shows are overnight successes, yet they don't want to give shows that don't fit this category a chance.

Which is why we more and more @#$%ing reality shows.

To summarize parts 2 and 3 (assuming this post gets through)

Is this a "wait for the trades" mentality? With some current shows I may be leaning in that direction. I've seen perhaps five episodes of 24 this year. Maybe seven. I'm more interested in Heroes, and I know 24 will be out on DVD by what, September? I can rent the series then, and watch several in a row, if I've a mind to do so.

On the other hand, I have no urgent need to go out and buy the current season of 24 on DVD. Renting is fine. So, if I'm waiting for the trade with regard to 24, I'm waiting for it to come to the library, not my local comics shop.

I concluded my column with this statement: "The question remains, will it become commonplace for people to buy a DVD set of a season (or entire series) of a show they never saw, based just on the description and/or word of mouth?

Time will tell."

And so it will. Perhaps in a decade direct to DVD TV shows will be more common. A show like Drive might be one such show.

Well, so much for posting even a summary of parts 2 and 3. Bill Mulligan, since the original post was in response to one you'd made, I can just E-Mail it to you, if you wish. Bill Myers has my E-Mail address.

Rick

"Peter, you are talking about throwing good money after bad by continuing to broadcast the show. The opportunity costs Fox was looking at were what made it untenable to continue with broadcasting the program. If the ratings weren't there, new viewers aren't going to suddenly be manufactured and the financial picture improve."

M*A*S*H*?

Most of NBC in the 80's?

Baywatch?

Star Trek?

There are a lot of others as well. Lots of shows that started weak came in to their own after a season went by, they actually got exposure or when the show that was getting the viewers went into reruns.

There have been a lot of really good shows that were canned too soon, moved to bad time slots or just plain bounced all over the place because the way things are now is stupid.

Some of my favorite shows would be dead and gone if they were treated then as they would be treated now. Who knows how many hits have died in the last few years thanks to the hair trigger of spineless execs.

Most of the DVDs I own are of shows I originally watched first-run, like Buffy, Angel and Babylon 5, but not all. I never saw a single frame of Firefly on TV. I bought the DVD set of that series based mostly on the fact that I'd liked Buffy and Angel. Once I saw Serenity, that pretty much clinched the deal, but even before that, I knew I'd buy the Firefly DVD set one day.

That opens the possiblilty for a show that has dismil ratings to still make money--I'm sure the producers make more money selling a $15 dollar dvd to me than they do selling advertising based on whether or not I watch (especially since I'm not a Nielson family member).

So I guess teh question is how many do they need to sell to make up for, say, 1 rating point? And how can they know this?

I wonder if someone could figure out how many DVDs of WODERFALLS sold and whether the combined income from the (low) rated show and the DVD sales would have justyifed a second season.

Rick, my email is kaiju@aol.com. I've occasionally had trouble posting. Sometimes it turns out to be a single word, especially one that shows up in spam-- credit, Nigerian bank notes, enlarge your penis, that sort of thing. Sometimes it's printing links to news items (shortening it just to www.whatever seems to fix that.)

Rick--pretty much all of the TV I watch is on DVD, mostly because the biggest chance that I get to watch TV is at work, during the day, and I don't like Springer(reminds me too much of my in-laws) and I don't like court shows(reminds me that I shoulda gone to law school.) Throw in the fact that my wife works 70 hour weeks and likes to curl up with a good Reba episode(her opinion, not mine, pretty much that entire show irritates the living crap outta me) I'm not gonna deny her. Throw in the five-year old who loves horror cartoons-(Martin Mystery-current fave) and I don't get to watch much here. Well, except for the horror cartoons. Makes me proud.

Wow, Bill, I had no idea Nigerian bank notes would do that. Gonna have to get me hands on some.

Congratulations. With an attitude like that, you'd be an ideal Fox exec.

So what exactly did you do back when you worked in Marvel's Sales department? I recall you were part of the cash register initiative. Did you also recommend retailers to keep buying books that didn't sell for them, because, despite no reason to think otherwise, eventually it'd sell?

M*A*S*H*?
Yes, a sitcom made 35 years ago is clearly something that can be compared to an effects heavy/location based action drama made today.

Most of NBC in the 80's?
Do you actually own a calendar?

Baywatch?
Baywatch survived in Syndication for a lot less money than it started with. It also sacrificed it's concept of action/crime drama at the beach for a jiggle fest.

Star Trek?
TNG was a syndicated success, which again is a different world than network. And as for TOS...well I suppose if you think a movie would be successful...I mean, Serenity proved that people who make a big fuss about canceled shows staring Nathan Fillon can't be bothered to actually go to a theater to watch him, but just maybe a winning idea like the Serious Cannonball Run will change that!

You work pretty hard to miss a point, don't you. I referenced older shows because it's an older mindset that doesn't seem to surface anymore.

All of those shows, and loads of others that are held up as some of the best of TV's history, would never survive today. Some of those shows were dead last for a full season before catching on by word of mouth. These days, a show gets the ax the same day it's second episode airs.

Shows these days have to find their audience by day one or they die. Shows that show every sign of being a hit get yanked before they've had the chance to be seen by most people. And some shows aren't given much of a chance to get that day one chance. If a new show gets put up against a returning powerhouse, it's dead. If a show gets stuck on a dreaded "death night" slot, it's dead. Lots of good shows get pulled to be replaced with reruns of established shows.

Star Trek is an example of a different sort. It was canceled, un-canceled, moved around, screwed with and finally killed. Then, as syndication let it find an audience, it became one of the biggest forces in pop culture history and a major cash cow for its studio. You think the guys who canned it and gave it so much trouble ever helped to nurture or create something that became that huge? I wonder how many "Treks" have been killed by second or third episode cancellations?

Scavenger,

I think you are arguing that shows are investments that need to make financial sense, and I think that most reasonable-minded people, fans and non-fans alike, wouldn't dispute that.

I think the disconnect that's occuring is that PAD, myself and others are making the contention that a show needs to be given a "reasonable" chance to justify its existence.

If you're saying that Firefly had its chance and just didn't cut it, I think that's a poor example. The scheduling was inconsistent(juggled to accomodate the World Series), the episodes shown out of order, and Fox executives cowed Joss Whedon into taking specific a creative direction they chose.

In a similar vein, I think most people would say that the ratings over two episodes of Drive might not be a very accurate measure of the long-term viability of the show. Maybe it is, but did every "successful" show shoot out of the cannon right out of the gates?

If you're staunchly in the corner of free markets-dictate-a-show's-worth, I really don't argue with you. I do think that's the way the world works.

But I'd say that not everyone was enraptured by "American Idol" versus "The Biggest Loser" versus "The Bachelor" versus "Who wants to Marry a Millionaire" during the reality-show-craze. Not everyone feels that showing Cho Seung-Hui's "manifesto" was justified, even if it did bring NBC heaps upon heaps of traffic.

For me and I suspect for most folks including you, free markets are the measure that ultimately matters. But they're not necessarily the right one. I'll never be convinced otherwise that the ambition, or heart, or creativity of a show don't count for something.

I think a show with enough ambition or heart or creativity matters, even if it doesn't find commercial success and ultimately gets cancelled. Or, as a wise man once put it, "Might've been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one"

It's why I keep watching Scrubs and The Office and BSG and The Shield, etc.

>>Fox did the right thing. Yeah, they have a habit of pulling the trigger quickly, but let's not forget that television is a business. Losing money hand over fist is a good way to lose that business. Fox did the right thing.>>Fox did the right thing. Yeah, they have a habit of pulling the trigger quickly, but let's not forget that television is a business. Losing money hand over fist is a good way to lose that business. Fox did the right thing.

No, they set it up for failure by putting it against established and remarkably successful shows: Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal.

Do you truly think that any show would have a chance against such popular shows??

FOX might have advertised it a lot, but they didn't promote it well. If they had, the premiere of the show would have gotten high enough ratings for the show to continue after four hours.

As Jerry Chandler said above, "Shows these days have to find their audience by day one or they die." That is the mentality that FOX had and unfortunately they did not bring the audience to the premiere. From what I understand, typically the advertisements are from the networks promotion department and not the show's creative staff. So, the responsibility is entirely on FOX.

They even premiered it against a show that they probably figured would share in the audience - The Amazing Race. They aired the show in a way that was practically guaranteed for failure.

Neil

"So what exactly did you do back when you worked in Marvel's Sales department? I recall you were part of the cash register initiative. Did you also recommend retailers to keep buying books that didn't sell for them, because, despite no reason to think otherwise, eventually it'd sell?"

No, I gave them hints as to how to take books that were slow sellers for them and increase their sales. Which, more often than not, worked.

PAD

Figures. I really liked Drive. It was kinda like a blend of Lost/24. I already lost "The Class" this year and now this.

I had guessed that Big Enos and Little Enos were behind the race.

Three weeks? Thats all it got. This years Keen Eddie.

Eric

PAD,

If Fox called you today and asked how to grow Drive's audience, what advice would you give them?

"But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn't impressed with Heroes."

After hearing all the hype about it I decided to
give "Heroes" a chance on Sci-Fi the other night
and after about 5 minutes I turned the TV off and
played "Oblivion" on my Xbox 360.
Maybe it's the hype about "Heroes" that just irriates me or something.
I watched the pilot for "Painkiller Jane" and didn't get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.

As too the TV/DVD and Comic/TPB anlogy I think it's perfect analogy. There's show called "TNA Wrestling Impact" on Spike TV, if TNA would release all the episodes of Impact on DVD I would probably not watch it every week (I would watch it just not regually) because I would have no reason too. I would just watch the show when
they have a match that I would like to see. But because there are no plans to relase a "TNA Wrestling Impact season 1 DVD box set" in the near future.
I have to watch every show requardless if sucked it or not.

"But I might be the only sci-fi fan who isn't impressed with Heroes."

After hearing all the hype about it I decided to
give "Heroes" a chance on Sci-Fi the other night
and after about 5 minutes I turned the TV off and
played "Oblivion" on my Xbox 360.
Maybe it's the hype about "Heroes" that just irriates me or something.
I watched the pilot for "Painkiller Jane" and didn't get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.

As too the TV/DVD and Comic/TPB anlogy I think it's perfect analogy. There's show called "TNA Wrestling Impact" on Spike TV, if TNA would release all the episodes of Impact on DVD I would probably not watch it every week (I would watch it just not regually) because I would have no reason too. I would just watch the show when
they have a match that I would like to see.

But because there are no plans to relase a "TNA Wrestling Impact season 1 DVD box set" in the near future. Because I know this I have to watch every show requardless if sucked it or not.

>I watched the pilot for "Painkiller Jane" and didn't get into the second episode so I decided to catch them on DVD.

Other way around for me. I generally really like HEROES, but couldn't finish one episode of JANE.

Weren't the ratings on Drive really, really bad? Also, I was only able to get halfway through the first episode...didn't like it at all.

Mr. David, you said this about your time in Marvel's sales:

No, I gave them hints as to how to take books that were slow sellers for them and increase their sales. Which, more often than not, worked.

How did that work, exactly? Was it hints for the retailers (put the slow-sellers at eye level so they were more visible)? For the distributors? Did they allow you to offer suggestions to the writers and artists, especially the cover artists?

I don't think you've talked much about this part of your career, which seems to have given you unique insight in the business of comics. In fact, if you wish to answer, you might want to put it in a "But I Digress" column.

And maybe, on a consumer level, it might explain why I buy some comics I wouldn't normally buy, but felt compelled to for some inexpicable reason.

Just a thought... I've seen at least a couple of people wanting the network to wait for "word of mouth" to build a following. You do realize that word-of-mouth works both ways, right? It lost over 400,000 viewers from the first episode. That's a whole lot of people telling friends and co-workers not to bother. Then it lost another million. Now, I'm not studio or ad exec, but that's a pretty clear trend, especially if there was considerable negative buzz. Hell, I have to wonder if it would have had even as many viewers as it did if it hadn't starred Nathan "the guy from Firefly" Fillion.

Also, by all accounts the current television season has been quite possibly the most bloodthirsty ever.

http://www.tvseriesfinale.com/2006/12/200607_cancelled_shows_missing_tv_series_and_upset.php

And it's not just FOX, either, nor was Drive the fastest cancel at four hours in.

Of course, as is the nature of the internet, there will be plenty of sturm and drang for a while due to some very vocal people still smarting over Firefly's cancellation and Serenity's less than stellar box office showing. Then, in a couple of months, much like Snakes on a Plane and other internet causes celebres, it'll be forgotten.

-Rex Hondo-

"If Fox called you today and asked how to grow Drive's audience, what advice would you give them?"

Off the top of my head? A different, more character-driven approach to the advertising (what made the show compelling was the stories of each of the individual drivers.) Something along the lines of, "Who do YOU want to win?" Also do promo-oriented tie ins with other shows: "There's no Race more Amazing than this one."

Double pumping: Airing the show in different slots or even twice in the same night as FX and USA routinely do, and even the way Fox does with "House."

Make a public announcement that Fox, committed to high quality, is definitely showing all twelve episodes because they believe in the series and want to encourage people who currently are missing it to have a chance to catch up.

Make a concerted PR effort to get placement for it in Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc.

As I said, off the top of my head.

PAD

"How did that work, exactly? Was it hints for the retailers (put the slow-sellers at eye level so they were more visible)? For the distributors? Did they allow you to offer suggestions to the writers and artists, especially the cover artists?"

Believe me, if sales had offered suggestions for writers, artists and cover artists to editorial, they would have only stopped laughing long enough to tell us to get out of their offices.

It was purely at the distribution and retail level, and mostly the latter. Suggestions would range from different display approaches to being alert to possible buyers based on what else they were buying.

PAD

"Just a thought... I've seen at least a couple of people wanting the network to wait for "word of mouth" to build a following. You do realize that word-of-mouth works both ways, right? It lost over 400,000 viewers from the first episode. That's a whole lot of people telling friends and co-workers not to bother. Then it lost another million. Now, I'm not studio or ad exec, but that's a pretty clear trend, especially if there was considerable negative buzz."

Going on the assumption that your numbers are correct:

The drop from Sunday to Monday? Different, less heated timeslots. The only real competition on Sunday at 8 PM is "The Simpsons," and "Drive" pre-empted it.

From one week to the next? Why assume that it was a drop based on negative assessment of quality? Could have been whatever was happening on "Dancing with the Stars." Could have been something even more fundamentally problematic: Viewers realizing the serial nature and saying, "I'm not sticking around because Fox will just cancel it."

Plus there's the fundamental problem that you're blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn't make it so. Let's say, for instance, that "Drive" has a huge following in college dorms. A dozen people grouped around a single television. In the meantime a couple of Nielsen families decide that they want to see if Heather Mills' leg flies off this week. In actuality, "Drive" real viewership is more solid than the incremental ratings system will reflect. It's only through long-term viewership that you can even begin to get a real idea of how popular something is, not to mention earn an audience's trust that a show will stay around. On Fox, there's very little reason for trust.

PAD

Plus there's the fundamental problem that you're blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn't make it so. >>

Also these Nielsen ratings are based on watching the show "live." How many people decided to record Drive on Monday night while watching "Dancing with the Stars" live so they could be ready for the results show of that the next day?

For that matter, how many Nielsen families decided they couldn't devote three hours to one show over two nights and recorded it all that first week?

Neil

One of the reasons I think Heroes continues to find an audience...aside from not dragging secrets out...is by using the network's partner channels...Sci Fi in this case...to show repeats of the new episodes the same week as the main channel. I know for us...since we watch 24 pretty much as it's released, and our DVR can't record two shows at the same time...it's the only way we've been able to see the second half of the Heroes season.

Had Fox made an effort to expose a wider audience by repeating the premiere on different nights, rather than showing three hours in two nights,it could have given more people a chance to see it, like it, and make the commitment to come back for the next 13 weeks to find out what happens next. Instead, the got three hours into the show with only the folks that already knew they wanted to watch, and left everyone else in the dust.

Neilson numbers do take into account DVR's and VCR's.

And whether you like them or not, that's the standard of measurement. And Drive failed by the standard of measurement used. And it didn't just fail...it failed to the point where it's most cost effective to not show it, and instead show reruns of another show.

PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show. Just like CBS does with CSI and Criminal Intent.

PAD thinks a more character based ad campaign would have worked...more character based then the whole Nathan has to race or he never sees his wife again?

The show was placed in a spot where it was teamed with a like action drama that does well.
It was upagainst game shows and dance contests, so it was the only show like it in it's time slot.

And no one cared.

There weren't million's of folks recording it to watch later.

There weren't "Drive Parties" held at Dorms where the entire student bodies of colleges would gather to watch.

There weren't millions saying "Well Fox cancels shows, so why bother".

I said it before...If there were so many folks upset about Firefly's cancellation their fox boycott mattered numerically...Firefly wouldn't have been canceled in the first place.

It wasn't that Fox didn't advertise it. The launched with a Sunday/Monday night blitz...the same way the launch 24!!!

It wasn't a failure of Fox...it was that no one wanted to watch it.

"PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show."

Unless you're a Fox executive, you don't *really* have any idea why they show House when they do and, oh, by the way, it's also shown on USA.

"PAD thinks a more character based ad campaign would have worked...more character based then the whole Nathan has to race or he never sees his wife again?"

Yes. There's an assortment of characters, each with their own reason to want to win. You make clear the demographic variety of characters, all with their own stories to tell.

"The show was placed in a spot where it was teamed with a like action drama that does well.
It was upagainst game shows and dance contests, so it was the only show like it in it's time slot.

And no one cared."

So I'm a no one. So every person on this board who watched it and wanted it to succeed was a no one. So the six million people who watched it are alllllll no one.

How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?

PAD

Also, comparisons to shows like Star Trek and M*A*S*H don't really hold up, since back in those days, there simply wasn't as much competition for the advertising dollars. There were, what, three networks, and that was it?

Nowadays there are at least three entire networks I can think of right off the top of my head dedicated to the target demographic of a show like Drive. For good or for ill, the television landscape is such that if a show tanks right out of the gate, the advertisers have no incentive to not pull out and focus on other, proven, properties.

Also, I'm curious that if the Nielsen ratings are not to be believed, from where are people magically producing a "loyal fanbase" or a "more solid" "real viewership"?

-Rex Hondo-

Also, comparisons to shows like Star Trek and M*A*S*H don't really hold up, since back in those days, there simply wasn't as much competition for the advertising dollars. There were, what, three networks, and that was it?

It still holds up because the concept is the same. Give a show more then two to four eps to find its viewership.

It still holds up because the concept is the same. Give a show more then two to four eps to find its viewership.

With what advertising? If it's already costing the network money to keep it on the air, and it's lost dang near a quarter of its audience within that first four episodes with no indication that it'll ever gain any more, what incentive do they have to keep it on the air?

-Rex Hondo-

Yeah, Fox is getting bagged on alot in this thread. However, I still say it is my favourite "Big Four" network on TV. Why? Because it has/had some of my favourite shows on there: "Simpsons", "24", "Arrested Development", "Family Guy", "Prison Break", "Married With Children", "Firefly", "X-Files". And maybe a few more.

The thing about FOX as a network is that it isn't afraid to take chances to Weird-As-Shit shows. HOWEVER, it is rather ruthless when it comes to deciding if these shows will continue to exist.

I don't think FOX is a network run by idiots at all. I think they are, in fact, one of the more balsy and interesting networks out there. When it comes to New Product. 2 weeks later, of course, all bets are off. FOX has done a ton of really great stuff, and some of the better shows in last few years, but it kills its darlings very early on in the run, which may make it open for being bagged on.

However, after all that being said, how long has "COPS" been on the network. I mean, like, what the fuck?

Plus there's the fundamental problem that you're blindly accepting Nielsen ratings as being accurate. Just because Nielsen claims that a million viewers went away doesn't make it so. Let's say, for instance, that "Drive" has a huge following in college dorms. A dozen people grouped around a single television.

True enough. Nielsen ratings do not take into account completely hypothetical Drive viewers, but neither does it count hypothetical viewers for other shows, so it all really evens out in the end.

-Rex Hondo-

"How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?

PAD"

Strawman much?

Not sure if anyone brought this up (I skimmed through about half of the comnents and didn't see it), but there is NO new episode of Drive tonight. The sweeps schedule released last week that implicitly confirmed Drive's demise didn't have Drive on it and that covered this week's shows.

-Dave OConnell

The cancellation of the show was immediate. The two remaining filmed episodes may be shown later in the summer. They are showing House repeats in the Monday 8 PM EDT timeslot.

Neil

How about people who post from hiding behind fake names are no ones? How about that?

That's what you're argument comes down to?
Seriously?

I've been using "Scavenger" as a pen name online for over 15 years. Me and you have been parts of the same forums, online, for over 15 years. We've argued and discussed topics, online, for over 15 years. We've met in real life. I was a character in a Star Trek book you edited. You and your cohorts almost borrowed my dog for your Mystery Trekkie Theater show at Shore leave one year. Dude, I introduced you to your wife! (Ok, I'm kidding about that one). Frankly it's the name I'm known by in the online communities I participate in, far more than going by "Todd".

My email address has always been my real name, so it's hardly like it's "hiding".

On House...yes it's shown on USA...who syndicates it. USA is part of the NBC family of Channels, like Sci-Fi and Bravo. It was a hit show, so USA decided to give Fox money to show it. It's not a situation like Heroes being on Sci-Fi.

And it doesn't take a genius to understand why Fox fills holes in their schedule with House re-runs, anymore than it does to figure out why AI is an hour long on Wednesdays now or why CBS puts in CSI reruns when it has a hole. It's the popular show that'll get viewers.

And I'm sorry to offend you and the 6 million..5 million..4 million and dropping people who want to watch drive. Here's a plan...if you all send Fox $10 that'll give them the money to offset how much airing it cost them.

DRIVE
P.O. Box 900
Attn: FOX BROADCASTING Publicity Dept.
Beverly Hills, CA 902130900

With what advertising? If it's already costing the network money to keep it on the air, and it's lost dang near a quarter of its audience within that first four episodes with no indication that it'll ever gain any more, what incentive do they have to keep it on the air?

One thing to remember with television advertising is that the networks say to the ad agencies, "We guarantee you'll get X rating. If we get below X rating, we refund you Y percent of what you've paid to advertise on this program." If Drive wasn't making X rating--whatever that threshold was--then continuing to broadcast the show would cost FOX money over and above the costs they had incurred to produce the program as they have to kick money back to the advertisers for failing to hold up their end of the contract. The question is, where do you want to hemorrage the money, at the front end or the back end? Yes, it's a brutal calculus, but it's the right decision. Giving the show time to develop an audience may seem like a course of action that can reap rewards down the road, but in the short-term the costs were against that. In FOX's case, they decided to take their losses on the front end by refusing to throw good money after the bad.

PAD suggests they show it multiple times, like they do with House. They show House multiple times because other shows fail and so they fill their schedule with their hit show. Just like CBS does with CSI and Criminal Intent.
************
SER: One important note -- HOUSE, like CSI and the LAW & ORDERS, is a non-serialized show. Episodes can -- for the most part -- be watched in a vacuum. In fact, I was halfway through a HOUSE rerun on Friday before I realized it was from the first season (a subplot gave it away).

Such programming can be aired multiple times and can snatch up new viewers. Any show that is serialized (i.e. 24 or DRIVE to an extent) is difficult to "strip" like this. In fact, it can actually result in alienating potential viewers.

Umm I enjoyed it, mostly cause it was so bad it was funny, yet kind of entertaining.

I can't say it was well acted or written, though. The acting (other than Fillion) was absolutely atrocious.

Kind of like Kyle XY, a very guilty pleasure of b-movie quality hilarity.

>Such programming can be aired multiple times and can snatch up new viewers. Any show that is serialized (i.e. 24 or DRIVE to an extent) is difficult to "strip" like this. In fact, it can actually result in alienating potential viewers.

What I don't understand is why this is such a problem in North America. Look at other countries. Japan has had hundreds of serialised shows - and I'm not talking anime, here, though it's often true of that, too. Admitedly often short run things designed to last about 12 episodes, but I can't recall following any which wound up being cancelled in mid run. They tend to COMMIT to a show and STICK WITH IT. So the audience knows it's safe to do so as well. An audience which starts off at less than half that available in the U.S. (129 million approx) and is also divided between satellite and other services. But, hey, they start a show on date "x" and they keep it on the same night, at the same time, week after week, without reruns until it's finished. Then they stick on something else. Maybe it's time they considered doing that here? Oh, wait they DID do that here. Thirty years ago. But, for the most part (game/reality shows excepted), not any more. And they wonder why they lose viewers?

I was bored with Drive about 5 minutes in and turned it off. While I'm fans of all the people involved, I just couldn't get into a series where people, well, drive.

> I just couldn't get into a series where people, well, drive.

So ... not a KNIGHT RIDER Fan, hunh?

SER said: FOX has HOUSE and AMERICAN IDOL and THE SIMPSONS and 24 and BONES. Granted, I can understand the thinking that a successful network can afford to take chances that a struggling one can't, but it seems that it's more often the case that networks in the latter situation do.

Well, House and Bones are great shows, but are also fairly standard shows where the hooks are the emotional hang-ups of the title characters. Both Gregory House and Temperance Brennan are emotional basket-cases, although House has more of a snarky sense of humor and Temperance has a tighter bond with her co-workers.

The thing is, House and Bones are easy to explain. The details of the show make it more popular. Drive was not that easy to explain. I don't think Tim Minear is cursed or anything. It was just a tricky show.

I said it before...If there were so many folks upset about Firefly's cancellation their fox boycott mattered numerically...Firefly wouldn't have been canceled in the first place.

I had never heard of Firefly in 2002. Never heard of Serenity when it was released; it wasn't until I saw a DVD-trailer (and I remember thinking the fight choreography in the bar looked good and it was a sci-fi film) that I put it on Netflix and liked it, went back and saw the series, loved it.

In fact, a lot of folks I work with (albeit, I work in a ridiculously nerdy place) also discovered Firefly years after it was already cancelled.

So where do cases like me & mine factor into your market-perfection metric?

Okay, I noticed my name was used in this thread even though I hadn't posted here yet. So I thought I'd chime in.

I have a bit of pop-culture blindness. Outside of comic-books, I consume very little in terms of entertainment. Don't get me wrong, I watch a handful of T.V. shows (BSG, Doctor Who, Heroes, Law & Order CI, South Park, Scrubs, My Name is Earl, The Office, and Psych). And I'll see maybe three or four movies per year, tops. But other than what's going on within my narrowly focused interests, I generally don't pay much attention to the world of entertainment.

So the fact that I didn't know about Drive doesn't mean a lot.

Still, I think people need to understand that merely because a show was promoted doesn't mean it was promoted well. And just because you can't think of anything else Fox could've done doesn't mean they'd exhausted all avenues.

I can list a host of shows that had inauspicious beginnings but went on to become hot properties. Seinfeld. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The X-Files. The list could fill this blog and then some. So just because a show was tanking doesn't mean pulling the plug was best. Unless you think NBC should've pulled the plug on Seinfeld!!!

The point is, sometimes you have to put some muscle behind a show and eat some losses if you want to create a hit. Otherwise, all you'll have will be the low-cost, fast-turnaround stuff that is increasingly filling the airwaves such as the dross we call "reality shows." It's easy to get flashy, titillating crap to catch on, but harder to get a good show to do the same. It's worth it, though, because without the work you'll never find the next Seinfeld/Buffy/X-Files/what have you.

Did Fox do all it could to promote "Drive?" Dunno, because I wasn't paying attention. I'll say this, though: if a network isn't willing to invest a tad of thought and creativity into promoting a show, it's wasting it's time greenlighting said show in the first place.

The last two episodes will be broadcast back to back on July 4th. Boy, THOSE will get great ratings!