Fox is...

[nerd4hire]

On the following thread -

https://www.buffy-boards.com/showthread.php?p=306655#post306655

myself and Wyrd Demon Hunter got slightly off topic discussing Fox TV. I decided to bring the topic here.

My point was it always baffles me how Fox does some stuff that seems kind of smart, (American Idol, Simpsons, 24), then does other stuff that makes you question what theyre on. Stuff like cancelling Family Guy then being proven wrong by DVD sales. Not giving the best reviewed show of it's season (Wonderfalls) a chance. Cancelling Firefly, then pretty much gifting it to Universal who look like they're going to turn it into a hit on the big screen. Then there's the mismanagement of Tru Calling, and the early cancellation of Dark Angel.

Wyrd Demon Hunter made the point all big TV is guilty of the same kind of smart/dumb thing.

I want to counter this by saying, "Maybe, but not at the same ratio". Fox is famous for getting fans angry with the dumb stuff. How would a studio like say CBS compare to that? I don't hear anyone damning Les Moonves with the same kind of Vitriol that is often directed towards Fox.

 

[WyrdDemonHunter]

Well yeah, but CBS and Fox are a lot different. CBS is in a different stage of its life cycle than Fox. Fox, as a network, is still relatively young. It's trying to be all flashy and appeal to younger audiences--or at lesat it was back when Buffy and Angel got going. I'm not sure what's going at Fox now, I don't watch standard TV much anymore. I have no cable, just broadband Internet. My TV antenna only gets channel four--which is actually Fox now that I think about it. But I don't watch it much--every now and then I tape an episode of 24 or attempt to watch the local news before their sensationalist reporting and total lack of clarity, insight, or depth sicken me too much to continue.

Or if that line of reasoning / rationalization ( 🙂 ) isn't very compelling, here's another one which is an elaboration of what I was saying before: It's not one solid monolithic entity. I mean pretend you sitting out there in space and you observing the humans and you were asking yourself, "man, how does this work? How is it possible that the humans could be so smart and so stupid at the same time?" Well there's a lot of different humans down there and they've got a lot of different affiliations and goals and responsibilities. This is the case even within one real, smallish company (couple hundred people). With a company the size of Fox there must surely be many, many subdivisions and little, petty in-fights.

Looking at the whole thing stoically and philosophically, when you understand how tragic mistakes like the two sort of recent NASA shuttle disasters could occur, then you can understand how a large TV network can be really stupid repeatedly.

Sorry for being all vague and slightly dodgy, but without any specific information on Fox internals this is about as good as it's gonna get. But I've no doubt the same sort of underlying mechanisms are at work. (Until evidence comes along to suggest otherwise that is.) Miscommunication is the norm rather than the exception. You can look around you everyday and see countless examples of people being stupid or just making really poor nonsensical descions. I do it myself sometimes. Often, afterwards, the person will rationalize their poor decision in any number of ways. Politicians and companies do this often. Of course, in their case, they often have the added disadvantage that no matter what they say, at least one group of people or another will likely demonize them for their mistake anyway. In addition, if they say they made a mistake and ask for forgiveness, they will appear weak to their competitors or rivals and get summarily eaten in the stock market or next election. It's a brutal world, yeah.

I guess the real question is: how's Fox doing relative to the other networks in the ratings? See, from a business perspective, it doesn't really matter if a bunch (guesstimate 1000s) of potential viewers get angry and rant so long as a whole bunch more (guesstimate 1000000s with a lot of overlap from the first group too) people still watch the network regularly.

 

[Anchovy]

Hmm..Fox is....weird. My general rule of thumb with Fox is that their scripted dramas and comedies are usually pretty good (Or amazing like 24, Family Guy, Arrested Development) and their reality shows are the bane of my existance. After all, this is the network that brought us Joe Millionaire, a show promoting basing a relationship on a lie, and "Who's Your Daddy?" a show exploiting a woman who is looking for her birth father. Then again, 'reality tv' kind of sucks in general. The only good 'reality' shows I've ever seen have been on CBS (Survivor, the Amazing Race)

And FOX makes HUGE mistakes with their programming choices, especially with shows that are innovative and have the potential to be what Buffy was (a 'cult' following that becomes a huge rabid fanbase). The canceling of Dark Angel, for instance, the mishandling of Tru Calling (which, no doesn't get the ratings that FOX usually expects from its scripted shows, but neither did Buffy in the beginning, and neither does Arrested Development) FOX tends to go for the 'sure thing' rather than putting in a year or more with a show to give them a chance to develop a fan base. FOX likes when shows give you the immediate smash hit, like 24 or Ally McBeal. But this year, when 24's contract with FOX runs out, we're going to see how hard FOX will fight with NBC (who are already talking about a bid for it) to keep their biggest hit.

 

[Patran]

On the following thread -

https://www.buffy-boards.com/showthread.php?p=306655#post306655


Stuff like cancelling Family Guy then being proven wrong by DVD sales. Not giving the best reviewed show of it's season (Wonderfalls) a chance. Cancelling Firefly, then pretty much gifting it to Universal who look like they're going to turn it into a hit on the big screen. .

And Firefly also did amazingly well on DVD, which led to the film. From a Brit's point of view, they seem to have a very knee jerk attitude to shows that aren't instant hits, and I think Firefly is a perfect example of this. I wonder how much money they could have made from it if they had given it a chance?
The only explanation is that they must be another regional branch of Wolfram and Hart. :fuming:

But I shouldn't really be moaning about US TV Networks when the British networks are even worse when it comes to genre shows like Firefly. For god sake, Dr Who is the first "real" British sci-fi show in many a year. For years the BBC and others were of the view that British viwers didn't "get" sci-fi so they didn't bother doing anything at all. Which is all the stranger as I remember Buffy actually topping the ratings charts at the height of it's popularity here. Well, thank god that Dr Who is destroying the opposition in the ratings. It shows that sci-fi can blossom, if it is well written and well acted, and supported by it's network.

 

[Soulgasm]

i've figured out that fox isn't perfect...but...except for lost...all i watch is fox and its crazier counterpart fx...

they cancel shows before giving them a chance...but...at least they gave them a chance...and thats cool...

 

[MentPatient]

I'd say Fox is more dumb than smart.
Seriously, they canceled good shows!

Only show that's still good is Simpsons (when WILL Bart pass the 4th grade?!). American Idol sucks, I haven't watched it at all, but people say it's just shitty after the 1st season.

 

[Roonblah]

I tend to think they are more daft than genius. Yes they pick up shows that perhaps other networks wouldn't, but once they have them, they try and change them, give up on them, or don't promote them all that well. The worst story I know if, is when they couldn't decide whether ot not they wanted to air a show. They locked the actors into contracts for a year and a half of limbo - they couldn't try out for other shows. This show was Marti Noxon's Still life. The irony is, they eventually shelved it because they didn't think a dramatic show could work with a dead person as a narrator. Desperate housewives anyone? So yeah... daffy.

 

[nerd4hire]

Yeah Roonblah. I was sitting here quietly thinking basically the same thing, only with the writers.

A lot of the better writers seem to be locked into these contracts where they're stuck forced to work for the prodction end of Fox studios. I hear the Whedon writers complain about it every once in a while. I'm just going by impressions, but mine is it seems to force them into producing projects, or contributing gun-for-hire scripts for Fox and Warner. The WB seems to operate like a Fox wanna be, and writers contracting with Fox production appear to often wind up working for the WB.

Great writers like Tim Minear get stuck in situations where they're writing stuff too good for either studio, like Wonderfalls.

Then there's poor Ben Edlund. One of the most innovative minds in television, but I'm thinking we won't get a chance to see another Smile Time, until whatever contract he has runs out, and he's free to work for cable. Global Frequency was (in my opinion again), one of the most intriguing ideas in recent years, but the WB squashed it on the drawing room table.

Also I have this theory, where the better writers of Genre TV were coming out of shows Like X Files and Buffy/Angel, and that's when they got locked into these restrictive contracts. Now Fox has become anti-genre, and these geniuses don't have room to create.

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

I rarely ever watch Fox. For the most part, I think they show a lot of trash (with the exception of my personal favorite adult cartoon Family Guy).

I tend to watch CBS, NBC and ABC for regular TV and some cable channels for movies and stuff.

 

[Soulgasm]

i remember the time when fox tried to sue itself....i think it was the fox news vs the simpsons....lol...that company is great....when it tries to sue itself...that's classic....

 

[killerdwarf]

You've all made good points, but I'd like to add this to the mix with respect to why some things get canned and others don't: politics. I remember reading last year somewhere (maybe it was here, I forget) that Angel was cancelled to make way for a remake of Dark Shadows for primetime. A new exec will kill a good show/concept just because it was a predecessor/rival who proposed it, or to make way for a pet project. They really don't care about the fanbase, unless it's making them look good. That will explain some of the stuff that happens...but not all of it for sure.

 

[Faith]

Well not being in the states I don't watch Fox, but certain shows from that network make it over here. Like most people i've been annoyed with the way certain shows were treated, and I think a lot of it has to do with money. Its a business after all and if a show is not making them any money why should they keep it up?

Now before anyone jumps on that, it was not my opinion but a reflection on how the networks should look at it. I remember reading for the first time in a long time that a show that had a strong following, but did quite badly in ratings (the second lowest new show this season) still got renewed for a second season.

I was quite surprised at this because of the way shows are treated now. That show was Veronica Mars. While it may not be up there in the ratings the network saw the huge buzz that the show created and decided to give it a chance.

 

[WyrdDemonHunter]

the scary thought processes of market execs

Like most people i've been annoyed with the way certain shows were treated, and I think a lot of it has to do with money. Its a business after all and if a show is not making them any money why should they keep it up?

I agree, but I'll go even one step further: a show could be making them quite a lot of money, but it could still get axed if they think, in their infinite wisdom, that by axing it and freeing up its timeslot that they can put some other show in its place that will make a lot more money.

The reality is that there's probably a lot of guesswork in figuring out which shows will "hit" and which ones won't, but I'm sure most execs don't see it that way--rather they choose to believe that they know best and that they know exactly and for sure what everyone will watch and what they won't. The execs are wrong about this of course, but as is common in human behavior, they've made up their minds in advance because it's easier.

And internal politics is often a factor too, of course.

Separate from this is another point--or actually just a restatement of what I've been saying all along: a given genre TV show could be a big success in the sense that it has gobs of fans, but still only be nearly worthless as far as the network is concerned. This is because, from the network's point of view, no matter how many people some genre TV show might appeal to, it's always considered, by them, to be a niche market. For a show to truly be considered successful by them, it would have to become a household word--like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire or Survivor.

(apologies for any redundancies or errors caused by lack of editing on my part)

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Internal politics is a big factor. See, the thing with Fox is that it's development department operates seperately from the other departments. The development guys take risks and come up with terrific ideas - but once they're aired, the shows are entirely at the mercy of the way more conservative studio execs. So the development guys keep coming up with shows, and the execs keep killing them.

Family Guy is an exception to this pattern, and it's DVD success sent shockwaves through the entire television industry. I hope you all appreciate that we're living through a revolution. In years to come, people will look back on Family Guy as the show that changed the face of the industry. Up until now, shows were regarded as a means to sell advertisement. The more popular the show, the more you could charge to jam an ad into it. And thus it has been since the dawn of time.

However, Family Guy's DVD success, despite Fox's best efforts to strangle it, has forced the industry to re-evaluate what DVD means to them. Whereas it had been just a spin off from the main cash cow, boxsets are now making tidy profits all by their lonesome. More than that, they're actually taking consumers away from television - people don't bother watching the show on TV because they can watch it with crystal picture, unedited, without ads, whenever they want. I'll bet you've noticed how pretty all those TV show boxsets have gotten lately, hmm? It'll be interesting to see what changes now that we can buy our TV, rather than have advertisers buy it for us.

 

[WyrdDemonHunter]

The development guys take risks and come up with terrific ideas - but once they're aired, the shows are entirely at the mercy of the way more conservative studio execs. So the development guys keep coming up with shows, and the execs keep killing them.

This is funny. And sad. And true.
Not for the last time I'm sure, I reference The Snafu Principle.

 

[nerd4hire]

On the snafu principle:

You know what's wrong with the "miscommunication along the chain of command" excuse in this situation though?

Take something like Wonderfalls. I just don't get how anyone could watch those 13 episodes, and not see brilliance. I'm not the only one who thought so. The critics were almost unanimous. When last I looked the DVD was the number 1 rated DVD by viewers on Amazon.com.

So it doesn't really matter what was happening along the chain. All the people at the top had to do was watch the 13 episodes, and remember how similar quality shows like Mash started slow, but when the studios stuck with them, they became megahits.