A small conspiracy theory by Sickdude

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

A small conspiracy theory

POSTED BY: SICKDUDE
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 19:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4223
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:57 PM

While reading Finding Serenity and some of the threads recently, a thought occured to me. Thought I might trot it on out there, and see if anyone has comments.

As we are all painfully aware of, Fox has certainly cancelled its fair share of good shows. Much more than any other network. Firefly, Wonderfalls, Tru Calling, John Doe, Greg the Bunny, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, etc. The list goes on and on (and on). Almost all of these were quite original, out-of the-box shows with respected talent working on them. Also many were cancelled after just a few episodes, hardly any time to give them a chance.

So, here's my theory: What if Fox is buying them and then cancelling them just to keep other networks from getting them. Similarly, maybe they're cancelling them a few episodes in to tie up the talent (e.g. keeping Joss from doing something for WB that whole season).

Take Wonderfalls. A whole lot of critical acclaim, and only four episodes aired. Further, due to changes and preemptions, no two aired at the same time. Definately not someone sane would due to a promising show. Or Tru Calling, where they order a second season and then cancel it months later after six episodes are in the can but none of those new ones have aired.

While this may not work for shows that got a full season (John Doe), but it seems to hold true the more revolutionary or out-of-the-box the show was.

Anyway, just thought I'd brighten everyone's day. As always, apologies if this has already been discussed on another thread.

"Don't say 'ka' until you've tried it." Daniel Jackson

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1:05 PM

SHINY

Actually a pretty interesting theory...but I still stand by the old reliable "never attribute to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity"

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1:43 PM

DIEGO

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Actually a pretty interesting theory...but I still stand by the old reliable "never attribute to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity"

Excellent point! As fun as it is to weave conspiracy theories, I think this is the parsimonious bottom-line answer to most conspiracy ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:02 PM

DIZ

I think the advent of DVD box sets has something to do with it as well. If the show doesn't get steller ratings out of the gate, just cancel it and sell the show on DVD... and don't forget, you can get all the un-aired episodes, too! Buy 'em quick, they're going fast!

Fox has no incentive to back a show. If it is a genre show, they know they'll make money with the DVDs, with very little risk to the bottom line. Show's a hit, great! In rolls the ad revenue. Show flops! So what, pump out the DVDs & watch the fans buy them up!

Jerks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:02 PM

GRRARRG

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Or Tru Calling, where they order a second season and then cancel it months later after six episodes are in the can but none of those new ones have aired.

Actually, they finally decided to air those, Thursdays at 9/8 central, after the OC. And I must say, there is HUUUUUUUUGE improvement over season 1.

You bring up an interesting idea. Still doesn't make sense, though - if they were worried that another network might get the talent, then they think that that talent would draw ratings. If Fox thought they'd draw ratings for NBC, then why would Fox kill them and keep them from drawing those ratings for Fox itself?

I mock you with my monkey pants.
Oh, yeah - check out my rock band: http://www.readyempire.com/index.php?option=com_artistdirectory&task=s
howCD&id=1
Click on "Play Entire CD"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:18 PM

SERGEANTX

I suppose it's possible, but it seems a little farfetched.

My own opinion is that what we're seeing is a triumph of marketing over content. What I mean by that is that the networks have convinced themselves that it's not what you produce, but how well it can be marketed that makes the difference. You can produce a pile of crap, but if the concept can be made to seem appealing in a fifteen second ad, they'll run with it, confident that enough people will show up and sit through it.

It's going on in movies too. If a movie isn't a hit on the opening weekend, before any reasonable assessment of its entertainment value, most companies will pull the promotional plug and push it off to DVD-land. The long and short of it is that Firefly didn't fit Fox's notion of something they could be marketed in the quick, flashy way that they think works.

It's all about instant gratification and short term profits.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 2:34 PM

SARDONICA

It's an interesting theory, but the industry doesn't really work that way. Unfortunately, not much value is placed by the networks in a "raw idea" or concept--certainly not enough to warrant keeping it from the other networks. and even if the odd concept came along that was "too good to let the other networks get" and yet "not good enough to develop ourselves", the networks would simply option it and sit on it--not develop a pilot, then a second pilot, then a short-lived series. The sad truth (and I say this as a working tv writer myself) is that ideas are a dime a dozen (granted most are bad, few are great) and the network execs with rare exceptions are unable to tell the difference.

The point at which your theory (and it's a good one) would really make sense would be in the case of developed properties. While it might not be the most brilliant or financially sound conspiracy theory, it's more likely that a network might develop a property--that is, bring a raw idea to a full-fledged series, and then cancel it and sit back and collect royalties as it goes on to draw revenues from books, games, movies, etc., finally to come full circle and be reinstituted as a second series with much more backing behind it.

(^Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is the case, or even a financially sound business model, but in the realm of "conspiracy theories, it's a more likely one...)

Another possibility, which is more in tune with your original theory, is that show which are developed and produced by PROVEN HEAVYWEIGHTS in the industry (Ron Howard = Arrested Development, Joss Whedon = Buffy, Angel, Firefly) would be scooped up to keep them from other networks. But still, it wouldn't make sense for the networks to cancel them unless they honestly thught that they could make more from "back-end" (books, games, etc.) royalties, movies, syndication, etc...

Chief Editor, AFM
www.apocalypsefiction.com
Writer/Producer, The NUKE Brothers
www.nukebrothers.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:04 PM

SICKDUDE

Quote:
Originally posted by Sardonica:
and even if the odd concept came along that was "too good to let the other networks get" and yet "not good enough to develop ourselves", the networks would simply option it and sit on it

Yeah, good point. I'm not saying I believe this to be the case, just something to think about. You know, trying to give Fox execs credit. As my wife points out, Fox execs ARE concentrated evil. Thanks, all, for the comments.

Quote:
Chief Editor, AFM

That wouldn't be Air Forces Monthly, my favorite magazine, would it?

"Don't say 'ka' until you've tried it." Daniel Jackson

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:20 PM

SARDONICA

^Nope. It's "Apocalypse Fiction Magazine." www.apocalypsefiction.com

Chief Editor, AFM
www.apocalypsefiction.com
Writer/Producer, The NUKE Brothers
www.nukebrothers.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:37 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Actually a pretty interesting theory...but I still stand by the old reliable "never attribute to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity"

Can I use that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:13 PM

CHRISISALL

As a registered Conspiracy Theorist I feel that while your reasoning may be somewhat in question, I'll have to agree with your pointing out that there is a conspiracy here.
We need to dig into this a little more.

The government may be involved.

Like Mel from the movie Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I think you give them far too much credit. Of course, it would explain much, hmmmmmm...

Just re-watched a few episodes of Wonderfalls on the DVD. Damn, I love that show.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:49 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Actually a pretty interesting theory...but I still stand by the old reliable "never attribute to malice that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity"

Can I use that?

Feel free; it's not mine:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:57 PM

ASTRAGYNIA

Quote:
Originally posted by Sardonica:
But still, it wouldn't make sense for the networks to cancel them unless they honestly thught that they could make more from "back-end" (books, games, etc.) royalties, movies, syndication, etc...

But wouldn't they make more from "back-end" products with a long-running series? I mean, look at, say, X-Files - a FOX show that not only continued, but continued long past when it should have died - that surely made them a lot of money, right?

Maybe the moral of the story is that scifi shows should be filmed in Canada...
(XFiles, Stargate, uh - I'm sure there're more)

So now the Canadian government is involved in the conspiracy... this just keeps spiralling outward...
:)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:16 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.

You know, if the DVD theory is correct, then most all of us had a hand in getting these other shows cancelled. By buying Firefly (And Greg the Bunny...I loved that show) we're helping the head honchos see that there might be more money in cutting your losses and sending it to DVD. We certainly proved them right on that account.

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:30 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Astragynia:
Maybe the moral of the story is that scifi shows should be filmed in Canada...
(XFiles, Stargate, uh - I'm sure there're more)

Only other good Canadian property that I know of is The Collector. And Canada is responsible for Andromeda, Earth: Final Conflict, and (I think) Mutant X.

I think our failures far outweigh our successes.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:27 AM

CHRISISALL

And speaking of conspiracy, check out 'a Firefly in the Battlestar mini-series' thread in the Other science fiction series forum.

It's good, you'll see.

Freeze frame Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:06 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:

So, here's my theory: What if Fox is buying them and then cancelling them just to keep other networks from getting them.

Maybe Fox is doing what you say, but it goes deeper then that. They are creating the shows (not just paying, but also the creative influence), buying them, and cancelling them.

A dark force behind both Fox and the creative talent in TV plays both sides against each other. As a result we give more and more power to movie studios and reality TV programmers, also all Fox. Finally when the time is right Fox takes over all of movies, music, TV, printing...an empire of entertainment if you will...and eliminates the Jedi...er...FCC?

Naw, nobody could come up with something like that. Not in the here and now. But someplace else...a long time ago? Could happen.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:30 AM

ZEEK

I could see some truth to the theory that dvd sales help push shows to cancellation. The execs may have noticed that killing a show early leaves fans dying for more. So, they are more likely to gobble up the boxset. With shows like the Simpsons that have run forever this doesn't work the same. I haven't bought a single Simpsons boxset. Mainly because I can still get more Simpsons for free every week by turning on the tv. So, maybe we really are hurting ourselves by buying up boxsets of cancelled shows.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:02 AM

GRRARRG

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
So, maybe we really are hurting ourselves by buying up boxsets of cancelled shows.

If that's the case, then we really can't win. If we hadn't bought all of those DVDs, then Universal wouldn't have greenlit the BDM, and we'd have nothing. Either way, we lose.

Grrr. Arrg!

How does Family Guy fit into this? Maybe they're just going to prematurely cancel it again, sell a crapload of DVDs again, and then renew it again? I think the public would catch on eventually.

Wait, I know - they figured we'd catch on to what they've been doing, and so they renewed Family Guy to make us think that if we buy enough DVDs of a canceled show, they might renew the show. Now, anytime they cancel a great show, we'll be sure to gobble up the DVD sets, and we'll say "look what happened to Family Guy! And, Firefly got turned into a movie! So let's go by as many copies as we can fit into our car, and perpetuate the cycle!" Devilishly Brilliant!

Curse you, AquaScum! I mean, Curse you, Fox! Why can't you use your powers for good?!

I mock you with my monkey pants.
Oh, yeah - check out my rock band: http://www.readyempire.com/index.php?option=com_artistdirectory&task=s
howCD&id=1
Click on "Play Entire CD"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:00 AM

CHRISISALL

Zeek, what you've pointed out makes some sense. Too much so. If a show is expensive to make and does not get great ratings RIGHT AWAY; kill it for the quick fanbase buck.

"You think everything's a conspiracy."
"Well...everything is..." - The Abyss

Cameron quoting Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:57 AM

ZEEK

I'm scared. Someone hold me.

preferably an attractive female

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:23 AM

SIMONWHO

I think networks can see DVD as a way to recoup their losses. Firefly was a very expensive, low rated show, Fox would have lost a lot of money on it. I'm sure the execs said to themselves "Well, we could keep the show going and if ratings double each season, then it should start to make money by season 3 OR... we could just shove another hour of some crappy reality show and get the exact same ratings for a fraction of the cost."

Fox tries these quirky shows because when they hit paydirt (The Simpsons), they're a multi-year cash cow. But as far as the network is concerned, if they don't immediately get viewers, they're out. It's not malice or stupidity. Just business.

Kind of screws the artistic side of the world in the pants but there you are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:03 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Fox tries these quirky shows because when they hit paydirt (The Simpsons), they're a multi-year cash cow. But as far as the network is concerned, if they don't immediately get viewers, they're out. It's not malice or stupidity. Just business.

Kind of screws the artistic side of the world in the pants but there you are.

But it is stupidity. Or at the very least shortsightedness. We've all heard the stories about shows that pushed the creative envelope and floundered (ratings wise at least) for their first few seasons. Fox even benefited from such sleepers once-upon-a-time.

These days Fox, and most of the others, won't give a show a chance to prove itself on its merits. A show is judged purely on its ability to suck 'em in right off the bat. They're turning the whole mess into a carnival sideshow.

What I fault the networks for is their refusal to allow critical judgement to override the short-term numbers game. I think this is deeply rooted in a corporate structure that demands instant success at the expense of long-term growth.

The long and short of is that you can't put people without an understanding and appreciation of art in charge of its production, or even it's sales, and expect quality as a result. (Jerry Bruckheimer anyone?)

*** (preachy whining follows)

Anticipating a response like, "But Jerry Bruckheimer makes money, short or long term" - all I can do is concede. But I can't help but point out that this is an unfortunate by-product of the fact that we're living in a nation trained from birth to be easily manipulated and 'sold'. Until we wake up and stop playing that game (and teach our children to do likewise), they'll just keep serving up crap.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:09 PM

MONTANAGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
We've all heard the stories about shows that pushed the creative envelope and floundered (ratings wise at least) for their first few seasons.

Just think, under the system we have now there would have been no MASH, no Cheers, no Seinfeld, etc, etc. Nothing is allowed to build a following anymore. If you don't grab big ratings by your second episode, you're out.

Quote:
Fox even benefited from such sleepers once-upon-a-time.

X-Files wouldn't have a chance today.

Gorram F*x!

If you can be an idiot, I can be an idiot. - D'Argo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:02 PM

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Canada is responsible for Andromeda, Earth: Final Conflict, and (I think) Mutant X.

Canada is responsible for none of those three. They were all nominally created by Americans, & financed by US networks. They were merely filmed in Canada. American studios do this because it's cheaper than filming in the USA. One of the reasons it is cheaper is because of tax credits from the Canadian gov't for productions that meet Canadian content quotas. To the producer, this means hiring not the best person they can afford, but the best Canadian. So, if you see a show filmed in Canada, and it seems like a great concept poorly executed, Canada may be responsible for the latter.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . (wutzon) Gov't Mule, "Lola Leave Your Light On", from "Deja Voodoo"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE