Fox talks about renewals in TV Week by tvdir

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Fox talks about renewals in TV Week

POSTED BY: TVDIR
UPDATED: Monday, March 17, 2003 20:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2064
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:38 PM

Please note: This isn't news about FF returning or going back to production.

The latest edition of TV Week, a television industry newspaper, has an article on series' "on the bubble" of getting renewed. Fox had a statement about renewing shows. The article mentioned Firefly and its poor ratings. Additionally, it had a statement how Fox feels about certain programs they believe in.

Here's part of the article:

Preston Beckman, executive VP of strategic planning for Fox Broadcasting Co., said another factor in renewals is whether the network believes in a show and is willing to say, "Putting aside the ratings, this is a good show. This show deserves to be on our schedule."

Last year, 24 garnered critical praise and a Golden Globe Award for star Kiefer Sutherland. But it was never a breakout hit, averaging 4.2/10 in adults 18 to 49 for the season and 8.6 million viewers. Fox believed in the show and its innovative real-time concept and brought it back. This season 24 is up 31 percent in both measures, with a 5.5/13 demo and 11.3 million viewers. The last original episode that aired finished as the No. 2 scripted series of that week.

Executives have to juggle the risks of retaining a freshman series vs. those of trying a new series. Often it might be more cost-effective to give the freshman another shot. "A new unproven show will usually be estimated lower [in ratings and share] than something we already know, but there are exceptions," Ms. Koerner said.

Fox's Friday night lineup of Fastlane and John Doe could be considered bubble shows. With Fastlane averaging a 2.9/8 season-to-date rating in adults 18 to 49 and Doe averaging a 2.7/8, they're not considered hits. However, Friday has been difficult for all the networks and on March 7, Fox won the night in adults 18 to 34 with those shows. That makes the decision on those shows anything but black and white. Earlier this season, NBC canceled Providence even though it was winning its time slot in adults 18 to 49 (season average: 3.0/10). It was replaced by Mister Sterling, which premiered smartly but is now averaging a 2.7/9. Fox last year canceled cult favorite Dark Angel, which averaged a 2.8/9 rating in adults 18 to 49, and replaced it this year with Firefly, an expensive show that averaged 2.0/7 in demos and was canceled.

To read the full article, it's at
http://www.tvweek.com/topstorys/031703bubble.html

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

Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:52 PM

MIGTEEBIGBIGBROTHA

Lets be real 'Fire Fly's' producer should have put it on Cable like Monday right after wrestling. It would have been a hit or have put that show on a Monday night opposite those comedies or Sunday night on Fox. Its a new racy show people think its just some silly 'Lost in Space' show like on that silly movie 'Lost in space'. But if the media would have gave it negative publicity I believe it would have survived. Cause people would have tuned in to see why the media blasted it for being so racy. Well I hope if they do bring it back they put it on a better night and time slot.

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

Monday, March 17, 2003 6:37 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave

it's been said that i don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows (thanks, Sarahetc). i gotta say my piece, and if this has been said before, feel free to tell me. here goes. it is accepted sci-fi tv tradition that following the first order of episodes (13, generally), the series is supposed to either get pre-empted by tournament tv (John Doe, case in point) or shifted to another night and time altogether every cotton-picking season (long live Quantum Leap!). lookit--even Third Rock from the Sun was subjected to the shift and happily made light of it successfully for a good five-season run. then there's the ones that don't get this "second chance." Crusade comes to mind and, of course, Firefly. why? because they cost too much. why do they cost too much? because they're *quality* tv. the sad truth here, Browncoats, is that *very* seldom do networks have any emotional attachment whatsoever to their programming. the almighty dollar has the final say in the ultimate lifespan of quality tv. and then there's Star Trek. say what you will (and you have

) but the only thing that helped Star Trek survive were those crazy people at the conventions who dressed up as Klingons and Vulcans and even everybody's favorite kicking boy; Kirk. those conventions were going on for 10 years before Paramount took notice and thought "hmmm. maybe we got something here." and whether you're in the Browncoat division that openly lynches that Kirk avatar with umitigated glee, or the equally fiesty one that was classically educated on the reruns (thank you very much), there's something in common there for all of us: it's still there, and it has been for nearly half a century because the fans "made it so." crack hardy Browncoats. there's a long lonely piece of the black ahead and the reavers will always be just about closing in. i look forward to sitting around the fire 40 years from now with each and every one of you, telling stories that start with "I remember when."

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

Monday, March 17, 2003 8:29 PM

CAPTAINMAL

I'm certainly no "expert" or "insider" but it seems to me that, if you have a show in which:

1. You have a substantial financial investment

2. You have an intensly loyal core

3. a high profile creative force behind it

4. a highly motivated and commited cast/crew

that this is a property which might, more so than the average new series be a candidate for experimentation rather than dumping. The ratings mentioned in the above post for Firefly were not dramaticly different from that of John Doe or Fastlane and neither of those shows enjoy the distinctions I listed above.

Given all these considerations, I'm not at all comprehending why Fox didn't try moving the show to another place on the schedule rather than giving up. If it was an anonymus little show with none of the above qualities going for it, then yet, cut your loses. I'm not SUPRISED - after all, I remember Chris Carter's "Harsh Relm" - but I can't comprhend it.

Further, I'm at a loss to understand why other networks, especially given the fact that Fox had already covered a lot of the initial start up costs, didn't take a shot. Particularly ABC.

While they are wasting a wonderful Monday night slot on Veritas they could have had a show that can't be THAT much more expensive and has way more breakout potential.

So I guess my question is...why didn't decision makers take the obvious facts concerning Friday night ratings of all shows as an indicator of the potential for such a series to rebound?

(And it's not just Firefly related...one might also wonder why a net like the WB didn't grab Providence...it fits their kind of programing and would likely have done very well for them, evne on Friday but even more so on another night...)

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE