Isn't cancelling TV shows mid-season or mis-storyline counterproductive?

[slug]

Its happened a lot recently, particularly with Surface and Threshold.

 

Surface is a great example, the show looked to be succesful after the first few episodes, so extra unplanned episodes were ordered, so there goes on to be several filler episodes where nothing really happens, and extra storylines thrown in that don't feel like they were originally planned. The same thing happened in Prison Break, with extra events thrown in, as the season's run got extended, but it didn't get cancelled.

 

But often they do.

 

With TV so heavily serialised these days, watching a show that you know is going to stop dead is about as pointless as watching a film you taped off TV where you know that the tape ran out half way through, or reading a book where the last three chapters are missing.

 

My point is that it creates a dud product that has little retail value. I mean, who wants to buy Surface on DVD, when the show just stops dead never to be concluded? What sort of value does it have to be sold to other channels? Shows that represent a complete story have excellent resale value to international TV and DVD markets, whereas shows that stop dead may end up on cheapish DVD releases or sold on the cheap to Scifi to be shown on graveyard slots.

 

Why don't the studios simply decide which shows they don't want to continue and order the writers and producers to wrap them up in 6 episodes or less?

 

You then have a complete product, a prestigious miniseries that can have a ballsy ending because everyone knows it won't be continued.

 

Is it simply that the cost of making these episodes negate the retail value of the show as a finished product? This seems unlikely, in that these shows will always be in full swing, with a cast and collection of sets that will simply go to waste. It may be that this is another example of studios failing to keep up with the times, it once made sense to cancel failing episodic television series because they had no real potential or resale value, whereas now DVDs and the desire for serialised television make it desireable to have a finished product.

[Tablet]

its flipping annoying, thats what it is!

[TetsuoShima]

Yup, I hear ya. But I don't have any influence in those parts. :p

[Guest Mrthumps]

Tv execs don't care about anything but ratings and money. Unlike the 60's and 70's when even a show that had low ratings still had a chance to finish the seaon now they have no patience nor do they care and will just pull the plug after 2 episodes if the show isn't getting the ratings numbers they expect.

 

It's just the way things are an until it's proven otherwise it's how it will stay.

[slug]

Its just that even from a financial perspective it would seem prudent to allow serialised content that has been subject to some investment to conclude, even if it has to do so hastily.

 

I suppose that there is a lack of collaberation between those who who plan what shows are going to continue to be made and broadcasted and those responsible for making money out of shows that have already aired.

 

[GorunNova]

I'd have to agree with slug about the 'lack of collaboration'... odds are, the people making decisions about whether a show lives or dies have no connection or care about DVD sales in the future. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

 

Edit: A guy who's sole purpose is to put on programming to make eyeballs watch ads doesn't care about the actual shows... just the ad watchers and ratings. DVD sales? Not his department.

[bones2097]

^^^

point proven... on

how they sexed-up sci-fi shows.....

 

not that i'm complaining....... ;)

 

though now i can't watch some sci with family though :(

[Steveo]

This coming from a forum that, on the whole, took issue with the use of the Television Licence to fund the BBC here in the UK. A source of income seperate from advertising makes ratings less important in terms of revenue generational ability, while binding the corporation to producing quality programming to justify the fee.

 

I agree with the networks, if a show isn't performsing then it should be pulled. Ratings are the most important aspect of television and money is the most important aspect of life in general for the human race at this time.

[Vyperion]

A few words on the DVD subject: Firefly and Family Guy.

 

The show is cancelled but they can still try and recoup their losses by releasing a DVD collection of the show at a slightly reduced cost. If few buy it then the cheap media offsets the risk somewhat and if people buy it then you're making money off a finished show (earning more money on something already expended).

 

Firefly and Family Guy were both cancelled. Since DVDs are cheap and the shows costly they make more money off stuff people have already watched. Now these two shows garnered a huge following. Firefly was cancelled mid season one and years later it got a movie, Serentiy thanks largly due to the DVD sales. Family Guy was canned and they released Stewie Griffin the Untold Story which together with DVD sales brought it back to TV with a fourth and fifth season.

 

Releasing DVD collections of cancelled shows can serve as an indicator and makes hard cash direct for the production/distribution company and show them hard facts on whether their choice was right

[Tenebrae]

The simple fact of the matter is that with the current model of funding - advertising revenues based on the estimated ratings - this is a simple economic reality.

 

In a way, it's production by democracy - a show doesn't get enough love, it dies. A programme gets a lot of love, it goes on and on and on regardless of how much the quality might slip (see SG-1 for details).

 

You can't honestly expect a network to keep a show going to give people a sense of closure, especially since that show has clearly been ignored by a significant number of people.

 

DVDs are an entirely different - and far more forgiving - medium for distribution with an actual knowledge of purchases, far greater returns and the obvious lack of time constraints and "politics" that network TV has.

[Antilles]

They done this to me in the 90s with 'Dark Skies', one of the best and potentially fantastic conspiracy theory sci-fi shows of the decade and not just coz Jeri Ryan was in it (schwing!!). Cutting a show that I really enjoy hurts so much it feels personal (hence why I said they done this to me).

 

I dunno who it was that chopped it but I bet it was Fox.

[slug]

Its interesting that she could have been considered capable of saving Voyager in that case.

 

Though I imagine her clothes were a little less loose fitting in Dark Skies.

[Tenebrae]

Ah, Dark Skies... I did love that show and yes - I agree. It had the makings of a great show... It could have been a good X-files (Bwhahaha) and quite frankly I'd have traded another couple of dozen episodes for all of Enterprise, no doubt... Jeri Ryan was the only person to really escape that show. It did have a lot of potential but TV execs aren't interested in potential. They're interested in RATINGS.

 

Not that potential means much. Sliders was a show of literally, LITERALLY, infinite potential. What did it turn out to be? Every episode was "oh, we're in a world much like modern day America BUT WITH A TWIST!" and then they'd end up making it more like modern day America.