All Time Greatest Blunders Made By TV Execs

[MisterBluxom]

I recently enjoyed a marathon viewing session of "The Andy Griffith Show". I came away believing that one of the greatest blunders (or call them errors if you prefer) that was ever made by TV Execs was:

1) After Don Knotts left the show, they continued to produce this show for three more seasons. The first five seasons (with Don Knotts) contained some of the best TV sitcoms ever made. But the last three seasons were some of the very worst. How could these producers continue to produce this show without Don Knotts for three more years? I might understand if they had only produced a few more episodes - or even one more full season. But why three seasons? Didn't anyone ever stand up during the production to say, "Wow! This show just can't compare to the shows we produced during the time Don Knotts was here.

[bmasters9]

You'll probably disagree with me on this one, but this is one that I personally believe was a mistake on the part of CBS Sports regarding their broadcast music:

In 1987, they introduced what has been the longest-running theme song for any of their broadcasts (their college football theme song, which has been used for 30 years, on their broadcast of Super Bowl XXI between Denver and the New York Giants, Jan. 25, 1987); it officially began to be used for college football starting with the 1987 season. 

Why do I think this was a mistake? Quite simple, really: it was used for not just the game broadcasts, but also the studio coverage (the studio show at that time was The Prudential College Football Report w/Jim Nantz [Jim in Studio 43 in New York], which I think was the best thing he ever did). Before, the game coverage song was taken from CBS' Jan. 22, 1984 broadcast of Super Bowl XVIII between Washington and L.A., and the studio show music (also used for College Football Report Update gamebreaks that Jim voiced-over) was taken from the theme song of The NCAA Today, a former studio show that was used for the 1982 and '83 seasons w/Brent Musburger as college football's companion to Brent's NFL Today show. I personally believe that the former way it was was much better than the way it is now, because it sounded a lot more subtle to me. 

Here's a montage I made of the billboards of The Prudential College Football Report, using the music for the 1985 and '86 seasons in the first two billboards, and the music of today for the 1987 through '89 ones (the 1989 one w/Greg Gumbel); the billboards are announced by famed CBS Sports announcer Don Robertson. What I'd like to know is, which one do you like better?

Edited January 23, 2018 by bmasters9

[Blergh]

Who could forget CBS's the Great Rural Purge of 1971 in which every vaguely rural show including Hee Haw and Green Acres got axed because someone got the idea that viewers living in rural areas weren't going to buy as much advertised goods as city folks? This led to a loud outcry and they (somewhat) reversed themselves by premiering The Waltons the next year after its Christmas movie pilot proved a ratings success. Oh, and Hee Haw managed to last another 20 years via syndication!

Edited January 23, 2018 by Blergh
holiday mixup

[Moose135]

4 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

How could these producers continue to produce this show without Don Knotts for three more years? I might understand if they had only produced a few more episodes - or even one more full season. But why three seasons? Didn't anyone ever stand up during the production to say, "Wow! This show just can't compare to the shows we produced during the time Don Knotts was here.

The network was paying them to produce the show, since sponsors were paying to run commercials on it.  That's about the only reason anyone makes any television show.

[MaryMitch]

5 hours ago, MissBluxom said:

I recently enjoyed a marathon viewing session of "The Andy Griffith Show". I came away believing that one of the greatest blunders (or call them errors if you prefer) that was ever made by TV Execs was:

1) After Don Knotts left the show, they continued to produce this show for three more seasons. The first five seasons (with Don Knotts) contained some of the best TV sitcoms ever made. But the last three seasons were some of the very worst. How could these producers continue to produce this show without Don Knotts for three more years? I might understand if they had only produced a few more episodes - or even one more full season. But why three seasons? Didn't anyone ever stand up during the production to say, "Wow! This show just can't compare to the shows we produced during the time Don Knotts was here.

The Andy Griffith Show had basically the same ratings all the years it was on (ranked 4,7,6,5,4,5,3, and was #1 its last season).  I have seen every episode multiple times and would certainly take issue with your claim that the last 3 seasons were "some of the very worst" TV sitcoms ever made.  I agree, the seasons with Don Knotts were better than those without, but they were still great TV.

[Cobb Salad]

Also, to add about The Andy Griffith show, when Andy Griffith left and it became Mayberry RFD, people were still watching - if I remember correctly, that show was part of the great rural purge of 1971.  

[Miss Dee]

The guy who championed Lost was ousted from ABC for its ballooning costs before it premiered...to astronomical ratings.

[ParadoxLost]

You never know if these shows would have become what they did if they didn't find themselves cancelled, but I bet there were some regrets from the network executives at NBC that cancelled Baywatch, only for it to go on to international success, and Jag which went to CBS after one season to last for nine years on CBS and then spawn the NCIS franchise.

NBC also cancelled Star Trek.

Edited January 24, 2018 by ParadoxLost

[GaT]

Jordan Levin, the head of the WB at the time, cancelled "Angel"

[Raja]

NBC leaving the Game 5 of the NBA Finals to be yet another network showing OJ Simpson drive through LA with half the LAPD following him.

[ParadoxLost]

All the networks airing the OJ Simpson trial and accelerating the death spiral of the ratings for their daytime line up.

[kassygreene]

32 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

All the networks airing the OJ Simpson trial and accelerating the death spiral of the ratings for their daytime line up.

I remember that!  All the networks were ready to cover day one of the trial, and day one was entirely procedural housekeeping, no drama at all.  They all lost millions of advertising revenue, and they all scaled back on their coverage dramatically for day two.

[ParadoxLost]

Handing 10PM over to Leno was a pretty idiotic move by NBC that eventually led to their affiliates revolting and damage to their primetime line up, late night line up, and creative relationships.

I always marveled that the same network managed to create such a late night PR nightmare twice (Carson/Letterman/Leno and Conan/Leno).

I'm not one to think cancelling a good show is necessarily a bad move (barring where they manage to survive and thrive), but SyFy has historically been run by morons.  They are morons because of the way they cancel shows.  Cancel Farscape with a fan base obsessed enough to finance a save our show TV commercial.  Renew Eureka for two years and then cancel it with one episode notice in the first year of the renewal.  Cancel SG-1 at the 200 episode celebration. Alienate your fanbase to the point that they fear watching your network.

They are morons because its now SY FY not SciFi.

They are morons because their decisions prompted a FAQ on their website that explains why they rebranded, why they air wrestling, why they have so much reality TV, and to reassure that they plan to continue to make SciFi.

[MisterBluxom]

On 1/23/2018 at 0:56 PM, MaryMitch said:

The Andy Griffith Show had basically the same ratings all the years it was on (ranked 4,7,6,5,4,5,3, and was #1 its last season).  I have seen every episode multiple times and would certainly take issue with your claim that the last 3 seasons were "some of the very worst" TV sitcoms ever made.  I agree, the seasons with Don Knotts were better than those without, but they were still great TV.

I must admit you are correct about much of your post. There are many people who love the show and enjoy it - even without Don Knotts.

But, my point has to do with the quality of the show and not its popularity. I understand you think the shows without Don Knotts were great TV. But that is where we disagree. I loved the show and thought Don Knotts was one of the greatest comedic actors of his generation. IMHO, the quality of the show took a very serious hit after he left. I think that most of the shows without him were of a markedly lower quality.

And, for me, it was not just the absence of DK responsible for that change. There were other actors who either joined the show or were already members of the cast but got a lot more camera time once DK left.  Perhaps it's due to my peculiarities. But I find that when I watch any of the following characters for any length of time, it was a lot like hearing someone run their fingernails across a blackboard.

Those characters include: Aunt Bee, Goober, Howard, Floyd, and others. Most of these just had some peculiar vocal mannerisms (like Aunt Bee's, "Hmmmm?") or Goober expressing his friendship by touching his fist to another person and make a "clicking" sound. It's very hard to explain. But for some reason, so many of those mannerisms just really get on my nerves.

Many people would ask me, "Well if you don't like those episodes so much, why do you bother to watch them or talk about them"? I can understand that. I just thought it would be interesting to hear from some of the other members to hear what blunders they can identify as part of the TV History.

There definitely were a few good episodes without DK. Remember the one where Aunt Bee gets a job in a print shop that turns out to be run by counterfeiters? IMHO, that episode was just top notch.  And there were others. Nonetheless, I thank you for your post. I was glad to have read it.

Edited January 25, 2018 by MissBluxom

[Irlandesa]

One of the greatest---The Heidi Bowl.  For those who don't know, in November, NBC was airing a football game between the Raiders and the Jets.  The Raiders were behind with about a minute left to play.  It was a game with multiple lead changes.  At 7 p.m., NBC stopped airing the game and put on the movie, Heidi.  In that final minute--final 9 seconds actually, the Raiders scored 2 touchdowns to come back and win the game.  No one saw it unless they were in the stadium.  Viewers were furious. 

My personal "that wasn't smart" moment was when it came to the Three's Company spinoff.  Instead of going with the character and actress who had chemistry with Jack Tripper, Joyce Dewitt as Janet, they selected a random actress to be his love interest on the spinoff which did not last.  I don't know if a show with Janet would have lasted longer but I do think viewers would have been more invested.

26 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

But, my point has to do with the quality of the show and not its popularity.

That makes sense.  But if it continued to be popular, an exec likely was rewarded instead of chastised.

[ratgirlagogo]

On 1/23/2018 at 12:03 PM, Blergh said:

Who could forget CBS's the Great Rural Purge of 1971

Oh hell, yeah.  As Pat Buttram said, CBS cancelled everything with a tree - including Lassie.

And NBC cancelling the original Star Trek.  Uggh.

Edited January 27, 2018 by ratgirlagogo

[bmasters9]

16 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

And NBC cancelling the original Star Trek.  Uggh.

And I have all of that O-R 60s Trek on DVD (in the remastered version).

[BW Manilowe]

19 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

Oh hell, yeah.  As Pat Buttram said, CBS cancelled everything with a tree - including Lassie.

And NBC cancelling the original Star Trek.  Uggh.

Yeah, the ST cancellation was really good--NOT. Especially when William Shatner's voiceover during the opening credits clearly says the USS Enterprise is on a 5-year mission & the show was canceled at the end of the third year/season. This is a good reason why you should never explicitly state something like how long your TV show is supposed to go on, in the show's opening credits at the very least, in case you end up being unable to deliver on that, sort of, promise.

[Lugal]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:07 PM, ParadoxLost said:

I'm not one to think cancelling a good show is necessarily a bad move (barring where they manage to survive and thrive), but SyFy has historically been run by morons.  They are morons because of the way they cancel shows.  Cancel Farscape with a fan base obsessed enough to finance a save our show TV commercial.  Renew Eureka for two years and then cancel it with one episode notice in the first year of the renewal.  Cancel SG-1 at the 200 episode celebration. Alienate your fanbase to the point that they fear watching your network. They are morons because their decisions prompted a FAQ on their website that explains why they rebranded, why they air wrestling, why they have so much reality TV, and to reassure that they plan to continue to make SciFi.

They are morons because its now SY FY not SciFi.

I've always said SciFi is a one-hit-at-a-time network, because executives always used it as a stepping stone to further themselves, hence once a show was on long enough that those who could claim credit for its success was gone, the new people cancelled it.  They cancelled MST3K and it's recently come back to Netflix. I don't think they ever got their heads around the fact that Farscape was their big hit and not First Wave, which was kind of an X-files clone. 

Cancelling SG1 during their 200 episode celebration was a dick move.  I also seem to recall that most of the cast of Eureka found out it was cancelled on social media.  Of course SyFy was run for years by Bonnie Hammer, who said flat out: Girls do not watch science fiction (which is why I believe they passed on Orphan Black)

But it's still SciFi in Poland

19 hours ago, ratgirlagogo said:

And NBC cancelling the original Star Trek.  Uggh.

I think within a year of the cancellation, they rejiggered the TV ratings system and discovered that Star Trek actually had pretty decent ratings after all.

[festivus]

5 hours ago, Lugal said:

Of course SyFy was run for years by Bonnie Hammer, who said flat out: Girls do not watch science fiction (which is why I believe they passed on Orphan Black)

I'm sorry but what? I had to quote you because I did not know that and now I have to go google this and find out more. That statement is idiotic.

 

SyFy does have me twitchy though about watching anything new. I was really into Dark Matter and they cancelled that. Right now I'm only watching The Magicians and I keep my fingers crossed all the time for that one. I really don't want to watch anything else on there, now I'll just wait and see how they treat a show and if it's okay I'll catch it when it's done on Netflix.

[Lugal]

I did get into Wynonna Earp, but I really don't watch much of anything on there right now.

Hammer's exact words were: "There were a lot of misperceptions that Sci Fi was for men, that it was for young men and that it was for geeky young men," said Bonnie Hammer, the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment, which oversees Sci Fi. "We had to broaden the channel to change the misconceptions of the genre." 

Mike Nelson insists that he overheard her say" "I'm going to kill that @#$%&! puppet show!" when she took control of the network.

[festivus]

I couldn't find that quote about girls not liking science fiction but while I was looking around I read that she said that her husband watched a few episodes of Farscape and he didn't know what the hell was going on so she thought she should cancel the show. I don't remember where I saw that one but she sounds like a real winner she does. s/

[Silver Raven]

On 1/24/2018 at 8:58 PM, Irlandesa said:

No one saw it unless they were in the stadium. 

Those of us living in the Bay Area didn't get to see any of the game at all.  This was back in the day when blackouts were done on games to local affiliates, even when the game was sold out.

[HunterHunted]

On 1/23/2018 at 8:38 PM, ParadoxLost said:

You never know if these shows would have become what they did if they didn't find themselves cancelled, but I bet there were some regrets from the network executives at NBC that cancelled Baywatch, only for it to go on to international success, and Jag which went to CBS after one season to last for nine years on CBS and then spawn the NCIS franchise.

NBC also cancelled Star Trek.

During that same time period, those same geniuses at NBC managed to pick up the Jeff Foxworthy Show and The Naked Truth after ABC canceled both shows in their first seasons. Foxworthy ran for a season on NBC. The Naked Truth did well for one season on NBC and then plummeted in the second NBC season.

[Annber03]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:07 PM, ParadoxLost said:

Handing 10PM over to Leno was a pretty idiotic move by NBC that eventually led to their affiliates revolting and damage to their primetime line up, late night line up, and creative relationships.

I always marveled that the same network managed to create such a late night PR nightmare twice (Carson/Letterman/Leno and Conan/Leno).

I read the War for Late Night book a few years back and it was fascinating. The sheer amount of stupidity involved in the Conan/Leno mess was utterly mind-boggling. I was just a kid when the whole Letterman/Leno thing happened, but I've heard about it since then and it was discussed in the book as well. I don't get how they allowed history to repeat itself so easily, either.

That book also perfectly illustrated just how out of touch the execs were with how much the TV landscape was changing when the whole Conan/Leno thing was going on. What worked for late night in the '90s wasn't going to work in an era of DVRs and people watching clips from late night shows online and having a lot more options for things to watch in general. Late night TV is going to mean something entirely different to younger generations than it did for the Letterman/Leno generation. And they just did not seem to get that. 

On 1/28/2018 at 12:47 PM, Lugal said:

Of course SyFy was run for years by Bonnie Hammer, who said flat out: Girls do not watch science fiction (which is why I believe they passed on Orphan Black)

...so...a woman runs a network focused on sci-fi programming, but doesn't think girls watch science fiction? Bwuh? 

[ParadoxLost]

41 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

...so...a woman runs a network focused on sci-fi programming, but doesn't think girls watch science fiction? Bwuh? 

I'm not sure which exec this was under but I understood that The Dresden Files (SyFy) was cancelled because the show's demo skewed too far female.  I didn't watch that show, it just stuck out in my memory because of the reason I heard for cancellation.

Hammer's current agenda, according to wiki, is to reevaluate all the NBCUniversal channels to be more gender neutral because she feels too many of them skew female.

[Lugal]

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

I'm not sure which exec this was under but I understood that The Dresden Files (SyFy) was cancelled because the show's demo skewed too far female.  I didn't watch that show, it just stuck out in my memory because of the reason I heard for cancellation.

Hammer's current agenda, according to wiki, is to reevaluate all the NBCUniversal channels to be more gender neutral because she feels too many of them skew female.

That probably would have been under Bonnie Hammer.  I got into Dresden Files on DVD after it was cancelled, it was actually pretty good.  As I understand it, the show did better with the female demo then they had planned, but was not quite what they wanted in the all-important 18-49 year old male demo.  Which is probably why Hammer is now trying to make the shows more gender neutral.

[Irlandesa]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:48 PM, festivus said:

I couldn't find that quote about girls not liking science fiction but while I was looking around I read that she said that her husband watched a few episodes of Farscape and he didn't know what the hell was going on so she thought she should cancel the show. I don't remember where I saw that one but she sounds like a real winner she does. s/

I couldn't find that quote either.  I did find a quote from her saying that there was a misconception that sci fi wasn't for women which is why she was tweaking how shows were marketed.

Quote

"There were a lot of misperceptions that Sci Fi was for men, that it was for young men and that it was for geeky young men," said Bonnie Hammer, the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment, which oversees Sci Fi. "We had to broaden the channel to change the misconceptions of the genre."

So she expanded what aired on SciFi and tweaked marketing materials on programs to attract viewers who might not be attracted by pure science fiction (or at least hadn't before).

The bolded part is where we get into "what makes a good exec" to owners vs. what makes a good exec to viewers.  I know a lot of pure sci fi fans who hated what she did to the Sci Fi network but under her presidency, the network became a player.  She brought original programming there and doubled its audience.  She then added the USA Network to her plate, developed the "Characters Welcome/Blue Skies" slogan and it was the number one cable network.  So she failed as a sci fi fan but earned a promotion as a network exec.  (She stopped day-to-day of the networks in 2008 and became Chairman of NBC Universal Cable.  So other than being in charge of all networks, she likely wasn't involved in the day-to-day decision to pass on Orphan Black.

It sounds like her goal isn't to value the male demo over the female demo but rather package the channels and shows in ways that are appealing to both genders.

I know I sound like her PR person--I'm not.  I just really loved the Characters Welcome period of the USA Network and miss when USA (and other cable networks) didn't feel like the needed to be edgy as fuck.

[ratgirlagogo]

5 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Hammer's current agenda, according to wiki, is to reevaluate all the NBCUniversal channels to be more gender neutral because she feels too many of them skew female.

 Good luck with that project.  All scripted fictional programming skews female.   Fiction is historically a women's art form - mostly written by women, mostly read by women.   This shouldn't bother the advertisers (if that's the problem) since apparently women also shop more and buy more stuff than men.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by ratgirlagogo

[Pippin]

Cancelling Enterprise.  Stupid move, apparently because UPN was going in another direction and also because Les Moonves (head of CBS which owns Star Trek) hates science fiction.

I know the stated reason was ratings, but actually Enterprise's ratings were fine.  I used to work in advertising and so I know about how advertisers choose shows and the research -- the very careful and thorough research -- that goes into these choices.

Knowing this, when you look at the commercials that ran during Enterprise -- for high value luxury cars, IBM servers (not computers) and so forth, you see that the audience Enterprise was reaching was high-end earners, managers and decision makers. Not the entire audience, of course, but enough to make placing these commercials on this show viable. 

That means the audience was a highly coveted one as far as advertisers were concerned.  The kind of audience most advertisers want.  So even if the ratings were bad (again, not) the demographics involved indicate that it would still be a winning/profitable show to air.

But UPN were as dumb as door nails and cancelled the show.  It's found a new audience on Netflix, though, which is small comfort.

Really, UPN was a disaster all round; they cancelled One Tree Hill (IIRC) but renewed the awesomely dreadful 7th Heaven; and Buffy went straight down the drain when it ended up on UPN.  (Mind you, I blame Joss Whedon for Buffy's deterioration -- the person whom he chose to executive produce the show was god-awful.)

Another bonehead network move: NBC cancelling Quantum Leap.  Sheesh!

[festivus]

9 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I know I sound like her PR person--I'm not.  I just really loved the Characters Welcome period of the USA Network and miss when USA (and other cable networks) didn't feel like the needed to be edgy as fuck.

I really miss that too. I don't watch anything on USA anymore.

 

I still can't understand why she wanted to cancel Farscape. It seems to be the rare show that had passionate male and female fans.

[vibeology]

3 hours ago, Pippin said:

Really, UPN was a disaster all round; they cancelled One Tree Hill (IIRC) but renewed the awesomely dreadful 7th Heaven; and Buffy went straight down the drain when it ended up on UPN.  (Mind you, I blame Joss Whedon for Buffy's deterioration -- the person whom he chose to executive produce the show was god-awful.)

Yeah, I'm not putting Buffy's failures in seasons six and seven on UPN. UPN gave them a bigger budget and let Joss and co do weird things like Once More With Feeling with very little interference. Buffy died because Joss spread himself too thin, the show wanted to be more "adult" and in the process made some very poor choices (a rape with a commercial break in the middle of it, for example), Joss has never been the "feminist" required to push a story like Buffy forward and because many shows are just going to run out of steam after five or six years. I'm not a fan of UPN but internal factors had way more to do with the poor final two seasons of Buffy.

For me the strangest blunder was how ABC messed up it's ratings boon from Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? They had that show airing five nights a week at one point but didn't use it to lead into anything exciting. They were number one and then fell to number three so quickly as people got bored of the show and hadn't latched on to any of ABCs other programming. For a show that was getting 30 million viewers a night, it just blows my mind that ABC lost that audience as quickly as they did.

[Chaos Theory]

I personally think it’s a blunder that Netflix is starting to act like regular networks and cancelling shows without ending them.  The whole point of Netflix is that they are not required to play by network rules so cancelling shows without a finale even seemingly  low rated ones  makes little sense.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by Chaos Theory

[GaT]

7 hours ago, vibeology said:

UPN gave them a bigger budget and let Joss and co do weird things like Once More With Feeling with very little interference.

I will never, ever, EVER consider "Once More With Feeling" a blunder. It's considered one of the greatest Buffy episodes.

[ratgirlagogo]

3 hours ago, GaT said:

I will never, ever, EVER consider "Once More With Feeling" a blunder. It's considered one of the greatest Buffy episodes.

I  love that episode too but clearly there ARE some who DON'T consider it a great episode.

[Raja]

7 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I personally think it’s a blunder that Netflix is starting to act like regular networks and cancelling shows without ending them.  The whole point of Netflix is that they are not required to play by network rules so cancelling shows without a finale even seemingly  low rated ones  makes little sense.  

The thing is if Netflix can't cancel for that reason then every producer will always include a cliff hanger and dare them to cancel the show

[vibeology]

6 hours ago, GaT said:

I will never, ever, EVER consider "Once More With Feeling" a blunder. It's considered one of the greatest Buffy episodes.

I didn't mean that OMWF was a mistake. I love OMWF. I was just pointing out that UPN did right by Buffy by giving them a big budget and giving them creative freedom.  The problems with Buffy were internal not network based. 

[Chaos Theory]

12 hours ago, Raja said:

The thing is if Netflix can't cancel for that reason then every producer will always include a cliff hanger and dare them to cancel the show

The whole point of wanting to direct for Netflix is that you can feel safe with producing a storyline and not feel you have to end every season with a cliffhanger.  If you knew you would get four seasons and forty episodes to produce a story you could write them without having cliffhangers every tenth episode.  But now that Netflix is cancelling shows after the first season directors are more likely to write like they do for network shows and add a cliffhanger just for that reason.  I love Netflix because it’s originals are often on par with HBO but they are cancelling them at a higher rate with no resolution.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Chaos Theory

[bmasters9]

On 1/30/2018 at 9:16 AM, vibeology said:

For a show that was getting 30 million viewers a night, it just blows my mind that ABC lost that audience as quickly as they did.

Pulling a Super Bowl LI, I take it (Atlanta losing it to the Patriots after blowing that 25-point lead)?!

[ChromaKelly]

On 1/31/2018 at 10:57 AM, Chaos Theory said:

The whole point of wanting to direct for Netflix is that you can feel safe with producing a storyline and not feel you have to end every season with a cliffhanger.  If you knew you would get four seasons and forty episodes to produce a story you could write them without having cliffhangers every tenth episode.  But now that Netflix is cancelling shows after the first season directors are more likely to write like they do for network shows and add a cliffhanger just for that reason.  I love Netflix because it’s originals are often on par with HBO but they are cancelling them at a higher rate with no resolution.

Yes, it would be nice if Netflix and other streaming services could be a place where shows weren't on a season-to-season basis. It could just be a serialized story of 10, 20, X number episodes and that's how it's pitched to execs and marketed. No pressure to cancel a show that's not getting great numbers and on the flip side, keep a show going that does have good ratings just to keep it going even though the story is essentially over.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 29/01/2018 at 5:15 PM, Annber03 said:

I read the War for Late Night book a few years back and it was fascinating. The sheer amount of stupidity involved in the Conan/Leno mess was utterly mind-boggling. I was just a kid when the whole Letterman/Leno thing happened, but I've heard about it since then and it was discussed in the book as well. I don't get how they allowed history to repeat itself so easily, either.

I often wonder if Conan ever regrets not accepting the offer to move his Tonight Show to 12:05 so Leno could get a little show before his. I mean Leno only lasted for 4 years. If Leno only had a half hour show he probably wouldn't have lasted that long. Just compare that to now where Conan is on cable and gets nowhere near as much attention. If he had stayed it would have been him vs Colbert every night.

On 23/01/2018 at 9:53 PM, GaT said:

Jordan Levin, the head of the WB at the time, cancelled "Angel"

That was at least partially Whedon's fault. He went to the network and asked for an early renewal. They told him they would decide and let him know when they announced the schedule at some point later. He said he wanted a response early or the show was done. Back then he didn't have nearly the power he does now and the network called his bluff and said his show was then done.

I also like hearing about shows that got rejected by other networks before becoming a big hit. ABC, NBC, and FOX all passed on CSI before CBS and it ended up being the #1 show on tv for years.  HBO passed on Mad Men before AMC picked it up.

[Blergh]

Kel, I actually think that it was the execs who shot themselves in the foot by not just telling Mr.  Leno to GO AWAY after his he'd ALREADY said he had retired instead of catering to his whims at the expense of Mr. O'Brien!  Yes, Mr. O'Brien may not get as much exposure but he's STILL working in TV despite not playing along.  Hooray for Mr. O'Brien!

[ParadoxLost]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I often wonder if Conan ever regrets not accepting the offer to move his Tonight Show to 12:05 so Leno could get a little show before his. I mean Leno only lasted for 4 years. If Leno only had a half hour show he probably wouldn't have lasted that long. Just compare that to now where Conan is on cable and gets nowhere near as much attention. If he had stayed it would have been him vs Colbert every night.

That was the opinion of most of the celebrity / producers interviewed in The War for Late Night.  I don't think it would have worked. 

There are several basic problems.  

First, Leno is his lead but he's going against the second half of Kimmel and Letterman and Colbert for the first 4 years.  I think Conan's fans are more likely to be watching  any of those than Leno.  So he basically he still has the same problem as with the Tonight Show.   His fan base likes a lot of his competitors.  Only now, they've settled into one of the others while Leno is on.

Next, Leno is still his lead in and how much of Leno's audience is going to go to bed when Leno is done.  Plus Leno is going to basically do a condensed version of the Tonight Show before Conan does it again.   

Then there is the stigma of "Conan failed at 11:35" which is going to become the network narrative because executives are never wrong.  There is a good chance that the affiliate revolt would have spun around to be about Conan not being able to get people to tune in early to the news to wait for Conan instead of the network destroying 10PM because Leno couldn't hold viewers in prime time.  I bet Conan would have gotten ditched when his contract came around again because they were embarrassed and 12:05 was a recipe to fail.

But another big one is that the audience likely would have revolted if Conan caved in to pressure.  Capitulation wasn't an option after the "People of Earth" letter.  But to create a scenario where Team Coco stands by Conan moving to 12:05, he'd have had to never publically betrayed how he was feeling about if.  The way the network handled it, that was never going to happen.  If I recall, they told Leno.  The gossip made its way to Conan and his team before the executives ever did. 

Quote

I also like hearing about shows that got rejected by other networks before becoming a big hit. ABC, NBC, and FOX all passed on CSI before CBS and it ended up being the #1 show on tv for years.  HBO passed on Mad Men before AMC picked it up.

HBO and NBC both passed on Walking Dead.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 08/02/2018 at 10:27 PM, Blergh said:

Kel, I actually think that it was the execs who shot themselves in the foot by not just telling Mr.  Leno to GO AWAY after his he'd ALREADY said he had retired instead of catering to his whims at the expense of Mr. O'Brien!  

Well they were in an unwinnable situation, since when Leno was set to retire he basically said he liked working, he didn't want to go and basically would go to ABC and set up his show there if they got rid of him. At that point Kimmmel hadn't really established himself so they probably would have bumped him for Leno. 4 years later when Fallon took over Kimmel had a big enough following that Leno going to NBC wasn't an option.

On 08/02/2018 at 11:09 PM, ParadoxLost said:

That was the opinion of most of the celebrity / producers interviewed in The War for Late Night.  I don't think it would have worked. 

There are several basic problems.  

First, Leno is his lead but he's going against the second half of Kimmel and Letterman and Colbert for the first 4 years.  I think Conan's fans are more likely to be watching  any of those than Leno.  So he basically he still has the same problem as with the Tonight Show.   His fan base likes a lot of his competitors.  Only now, they've settled into one of the others while Leno is on.

Next, Leno is still his lead in and how much of Leno's audience is going to go to bed when Leno is done.  Plus Leno is going to basically do a condensed version of the Tonight Show before Conan does it again.   

Then there is the stigma of "Conan failed at 11:35" which is going to become the network narrative because executives are never wrong.  There is a good chance that the affiliate revolt would have spun around to be about Conan not being able to get people to tune in early to the news to wait for Conan instead of the network destroying 10PM because Leno couldn't hold viewers in prime time.  I bet Conan would have gotten ditched when his contract came around again because they were embarrassed and 12:05 was a recipe to fail.

But another big one is that the audience likely would have revolted if Conan caved in to pressure.  Capitulation wasn't an option after the "People of Earth" letter.  But to create a scenario where Team Coco stands by Conan moving to 12:05, he'd have had to never publically betrayed how he was feeling about if.  The way the network handled it, that was never going to happen.  If I recall, they told Leno.  The gossip made its way to Conan and his team before the executives ever did. 

I could certainly see that happening, but I could also picture a scenario where Conan hangs on for a few years (possibly less than 4) and then Leno is forced to retire with nowhere to go. I mean look how long Kimmel hung on having a 12:05 show. It could have happened which why it is fun to speculate, and it is kind of dissapointing how much less relevant Conan is now that he is on TBS. I used to love his version of late night in my teens and twenties, but I honestly don't think i have ever watched his TBS show.

[Blergh]

Kel,

 I'll bet if Mr. Leno had attempted to follow through on taking his toys. ..er show to ABC after having ALREADY retired, the ABC folks would have just LAUGHED HIM OUT THE DOOR while they shut it in his face! NBC not only stupidly placated his tantrum instead of just telling him to GO HOME and find a hobby if he's bored with retirement, but they ALSO sabotaged no less than five hours of programming a week which others could have used (which means minimally five shows but up to TEN shows were crowded out by this stunt).  Sorry, but what NBC did to Mr. O'Brien and all those other performers re spoiling Mr. Leno really STANK!

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, Blergh said:

but they ALSO sabotaged no less than five hours of programming a week which others could have used (which means minimally five shows but up to TEN shows were crowded out by this stunt

Luckily TNT picked it up but I was so pissed for Southland.

[Picture It. Sicily]

14 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Luckily TNT picked it up but I was so pissed for Southland.

I actually called the network and complained about them cancelling Southland after they had initially renewed it for a second season. I've never done that before in my life-or since-and i doubt anyone listened to my message, but I was pissed!

[fishcakes]

On 2/10/2018 at 4:58 AM, Kel Varnsen said:

Well they were in an unwinnable situation, since when Leno was set to retire he basically said he liked working, he didn't want to go and basically would go to ABC and set up his show there if they got rid of him. At that point Kimmmel hadn't really established himself so they probably would have bumped him for Leno.

It's been a while since I read the War for Late Night book so I might be misremembering some of the details, but I think that ABC wasn't really an option for Leno because Kimmel's contract with them gave him the slot immediately following Nightline, which at the time was airing from 11:35 to 12:05. Leno tried schmoozing Kimmel into working with him as a team at ABC -- Leno's plan being that Leno gets the 11:35 slot and Kimmel follows. I don't know what Leno thought was going to happen to Nightline; ABC certainly wasn't going to push it to 1:35 just to attract Leno, who by that point had already lost half his audience to Kimmel. Leno trying to convince Kimmel that the two of them should present a united front to ABC was beneficial to Leno alone, and I think that accounts for the pretty obvious animosity Kimmel had for him when all the dust had settled.

I always felt that Conan's mistake was in not jumping to FOX in the mid-2000s when his popularity was at a high they offered him an 11:30 slot. That was what prompted NBC to offer him Tonight if he would just do the Late Show for five more years and wait for Leno to retire. It was similar to the offer NBC made to Letterman during the first Late Night war: let Leno have the Tonight Show for 18 months and then they'd give it to Dave. But Letterman understood that if that happened, that he wouldn't be inheriting Johnny's show, he'd just be the guy who replaced Jay Leno. Similarly, Conan's attachment to Tonight was because he had grown up watching Johnny, and he was holding out for getting that show, but unlike Dave, he couldn't set aside his sentimentality about it, and NBC played on that to keep him waiting around.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, fishcakes said:

It's been a while since I read the War for Late Night book so I might be misremembering some of the details, but I think that ABC wasn't really an option for Leno because Kimmel's contract with them gave him the slot immediately following Nightline, which at the time was airing from 11:35 to 12:05. Leno tried schmoozing Kimmel into working with him as a team at ABC -- Leno's plan being that Leno gets the 11:35 slot and Kimmel follows. I don't know what Leno thought was going to happen to Nightline; ABC certainly wasn't going to push it to 1:35 just to attract Leno, who by that point had already lost half his audience to Kimmel. Leno trying to convince Kimmel that the two of them should present a united front to ABC was beneficial to Leno alone, and I think that accounts for the pretty obvious animosity Kimmel had for him when all the dust had settled.

I always felt that Conan's mistake was in not jumping to FOX in the mid-2000s when his popularity was at a high they offered him an 11:30 slot. That was what prompted NBC to offer him Tonight if he would just do the Late Show for five more years and wait for Leno to retire. It was similar to the offer NBC made to Letterman during the first Late Night war: let Leno have the Tonight Show for 18 months and then they'd give it to Dave. But Letterman understood that if that happened, that he wouldn't be inheriting Johnny's show, he'd just be the guy who replaced Jay Leno. Similarly, Conan's attachment to Tonight was because he had grown up watching Johnny, and he was holding out for getting that show, but unlike Dave, he couldn't set aside his sentimentality about it, and NBC played on that to keep him waiting around.

Been awhile since i read that too but i remember a line about how Leno didn't care who he worked for and either he came out of his driveway and turned right and went to NBC's studios or turned left and went to ABC's. Even with Kimmel's contract it would be hard for any network to ignore an offer from the host of the #1 late night show who had a pretty dedicated following. Leno was also a super dedicated corporate guy who would always say yes to showing up at various company and executive events to do some stand-up.

Honestly what NBC should have done is when they originally negotiated to give Conan the tonight show is made Leno sign a 1 year or more no compete clause after he retired. That way even if he did eventually go somewhere else it would give Conan a chance to build an audience first.  Because the big fear for NBC was letting Leno go, him going somewhere else and going from the Tonight Show being the #1 show to the #3 show overnight.  Without that fear, letting Leno go becomes a no brainer.

[methodwriter85]

When Les Moonves basically forced the new CW to renew 7th Heaven and cancel Everwood because the original series finale of 7th Heaven had a lot of viewers. Well, duh. It just made no sense on so many levels- the show was costly after running for 10 seasons (and they had to cut a lot of characters to make season 11 happen), and Everwood was about to hit syndication which meant that a 5th season probably would have had a lot of interest.