My Theory


My theory as to why great shows often don't make the 'ratings' cut is because of what the audience is willing to put up with. Take, for example, American Idol. For the 'intelligent' audience this show (along with almost all reality shows) is fodder for the mind. It does not force you to think at all.

The thought required to truly appreciate Better Off Ted or Arrested Development far exceeds that of The Biggest Loser.

Consider the typical 30 minute program. When aired on network television a viewer must devote 30 minutes to view 21 or 22 minutes of broadcast. What is the rest? Advertisement drivel.

So, for the viewer who is already watching drivel (reality shows) this doesn't take away from them. The viewer who wants to engage their mind by watching quality shows (BOT, AD, etc.) devote nearly 1/3 of their time to watching drivel.

Usually it's the case that the BOT/AD viewers wait until they purchase the show on DVD to avoid the advertisement drivel. Since they refuse to waste their time watching advertisement the ratings of the show drop and causes it to get canceled.

I refuse to watch television under any circumstance whatsoever simply because I hate commercials. I'll wait until the season is over and watch it on DVD before I'll watch a single commercial. I get the feeling more and more people are drifting to this approach - especially with Netflix/Hulu options available.

Just a theory...I could be wrong.

reply

That and as sad is it is to admit more people out there actually like American Idol. What a sad cruel world we live in.

This is where the fish lives

reply

we already know good shows don't succeed because people are either dumb or don't like to think.

you know, it's not such a good idea to avoid commercials. often brands partly finance shows/movies (that's nice) and if people keep avoiding commercials, we're just gonna see more brands find their way into the action. companies like their brands to be seen. remember the burger king placement on AD? it sure is a great restaurant. snapple on 30 rock? I only date guys who drink snapple.


----
Only clowns will play with those balloons.

reply

LOL i know this is such an old post but those were both jokes. The didn't receive any money for that. They were just being funny. And 30 Rock stole it from AD, lovingly I assume.

reply

All of these things that you see as detrimental, to me they are what made the show better. Your first and third points are a bit related - both have to do with how realistic the show is. But I enjoyed the fact that the show seemed to take place in its own world. I don't need to feel that something could really happen in our world for me to find it funny. This actually made it better, it didn't restrain the humor and story lines too much. It allowed the writer(s) to "go there", or stretch reality and give the viewer something original.

As for the second point, I'm not familiar with the writer or what the writing process looked like for the show, but my experience with BOT was that rather than having a whole slew of questionable jokes, and only landing a few of those, they selected the quality material and pretty much everything was a hit.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying that you are wrong, but that as you know opinions and humor vary among all people, I support a greater diversity in the programming on T.V. And that is exactly what BOT was - it was original and a different type of humor than most of what is on T.V. today. You all can have your 30 Rocks and Family Guys, but it's a damn shame that they canceled a show that clearly had a small but enthusiastic fan base.

reply

[deleted]

I think u might be missing the point on the "reality" that the show was trying to set us, i think that reality was the ever growing need of a corporation to have more money (that anyone could expend on 10 lives, looking good to the public by doing so, exploiting their workers to make that happen, and showing us how an employee can be driven by a "loyalty" to their masters.

I think this is a reality that any third world employee (like me), feels attached to.

And the USA, i think, is going back to feeling that the ones upstairs are some evil doers, How can this not be more REAL?

And funny :p

reply

My theory is that good shows (not reality crap) cost more and more to produce and the networks think that for that kind of money every show needs to be a ratings powerhouse immediately. Because of this every show tries to outdo the next, driving up production costs even more.

Back in the 70's 80's and 90's the networks got behind their shows a little more and gave a lot of promising shows a few seasons to take off. If Knots Landing premiered today it probably wouldn't have made it through the entire season. It took this high rated show a few seasons to find it's legs. One of my favorite shows of the 80's, the first couple of seasons were just alright before it got really good. Michelle Lee even joked that she wondered if the network forgot to cancel them for a couple years. Unlike ABC with Better Off Ted, the network stood behind it and watched it climb to a top spot. Because of this Knots Landing still remains a stellar example of life in the 80's.

Networks need to remember that good shows need time to simmer and find their audience. I think Better Off Ted deserved this opportunity. It was a great cast and each character had flaws or quirks but remained likeable. The actors had real chemistry together. I think it was just forming a cult audience and predict that by the end of a true second season- not several episodes shown here and there- would have become one of the "hip" shows to watch.

Stepping off my soapbox now...

reply

Well up until the late 90's and 2000's most networks had less competition regarding media, but with the surfacing of the public internet everything became even more fast-paced and I think many networks felt like they had less time to actually get their ideas sold to the public.

I think the whole mistake lies with many shows being pressed into the media system of the modern web-generation. They try to hard to appeal to an audience that is used to get their fun quick and cheap and in as many variations as possible. During that they sadly fire away good ideas like Better off Ted, without even thinking of the consequences that they are going to run out of concepts even quicker.
If they just tried to appeal to another viewership, I think they would stand a chance as a co-existing media beside the internet. The newspaper did it's job, too, while the TV became popular, so I think it's possible as long as they don't loose sight of what their potentials are...which they seem to do.

I wouldn't have any problem with watching a show running for a longer period as long as it gradually got better. Many concepts need a while to actually flourish, but well, the viewers they are adressing right now (which is of course the majority o people) need their meat fast and tasting of as much as possible.
Somehow TV just can't take it that they're no longer the ruling media concept.

And concerning Lushx77's critique of the show, I have to agree with asgstar33 there. Most of the things you criticized were actually the things that made this show for me. It never tried to be realistic but instead gave us concepts that are relevant to modern capitalist society, work and private life and overplayed them in a (for me) totally hilarious way.

I see where this can become a problem, because it actually calls for the viewer to get the abstract meaning. It bombarded you with so many absurd and surreal situations, while the approach towards sitcom that the average viewer is used to is nothing more than the term: situation comedy.
Better off Ted is not so much a situation comedy in a classical sense because it isn't filled with funny everyday situation. I can see how many people can have problems relating to that.

Regarding there mostly only being one writer, if I understood correctly, I think it might have been that which made the comedy of this series so consistent for me.
Instead of every 2nd episode having a totally different feeling, different way of constructing itself, it felt more like a whole. While most characters didn't have much time to develop, they felt so much more consistent than in many other series lately, where they have a hard time writing around the different ideas that the several writers throw into the pot.

Anyway, I really hope this series gets picked up by another network if that's possible. I just stumbled upon it a few days ago, because the German Comedy Central picked it up for next season and I just thought to try some episodes out beforehand, because I can't stand Porta de Rossi's German voice actress.
I was so sad to read that it was already cancelled again.

reply

by god you're right! the tv shows that a person watches are a direct measure of their intelligence! instead of giving people iq tests, from now on we should have people list their favorite tv shows to gauge their intelligence.

reply

i know this is sarcasm... but it's not such a bad idea.

reply

the networks think that for that kind of money every show needs to be a ratings powerhouse immediately

You just summed up the whole industry in a sentence. It's all about quick cold cash. Producers say "ratings were too low so we have to cancel" but what they are not telling us is that with most exports, they earn 3, 4, 5 times more money than what they get by showing the shows on US television. DVD sales is another story (more money).

reply

you know what down in the toilet nbc needs to pick up this show asap this show is brilliant

reply

I agree. I just finished rewatching season 1.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]