Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Shows That: Died Before Their Time, Never Got A Fair Shot, Or Were Ahead Of Their Time


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

I'm torn with Longmire--they did get three seasons, but it also sounds like they were the red-headed step-child for the network. I enjoyed the first season quite a bit, but the following two never seemed to live up to their potential. I kept watching because I liked the characters, though. However, they may still get a chance at another season with Netflix, so maybe we shouldn't lament it's passing quite yet:  http://deadline.com/2014/11/longmire-season-4-netflix-series-order-1201280496/.

I'd also like to submit Deep Space 9 for your consideration. While it's critically acclaimed now as possibly the best Trek series, it came in for a lot of criticism and low ratings during its run. The mythology and serial storytelling alone was years ahead of its time.

  • Love 2

I'd also like to submit Deep Space 9 for your consideration. While it's critically acclaimed now as possibly the best Trek series, it came in for a lot of criticism and low ratings during its run. The mythology and serial storytelling alone was years ahead of its time.

I love DS9 but I would say it had one of the best endings I've seen. All major plots were wrapped up, there was some clue on the directions the characters go. If they had made more seasons (or a movie) I gladly would watch them but I feel it had a satiating ending.

  • Love 1

I'm pretty sad right now about Selfie. The title is horrible and the pilot was kinda shaky, but it was turning into quite a sweet and funny show. Plus, the leads were awesome with great chemistry. It also has a weird sense of humor. It was like My Fair Lady by way of Better Off Ted.

  • Love 3

Longmire is canceled? I really liked that show.

I came here to talk about Being Human with Michael Ealy and the guy who plays Bones in the new Star Trek movies (can't believe I'm blanking on his name like this). It wasn't groundbreaking or anything. It was entertaining and I loved the eye candy. Plus, it ended with unanswered questions, which I hate.

Just about every show I'm still bitter over has been mentioned.

Edited by nicepebbles
  • Love 2

 

I came here to talk about Being Human with Michael Ealy and the guy who plays Bones in the new Star Trek movies (can't believe I'm blanking on his name like this). It wasn't groundbreaking or anything. It was entertaining and I loved the eye candy. Plus, it ended with unanswered questions, which I hate.

 

 

You mean Almost Human with Karl Urban. Even though it had problems, I too mourn its cancellation. It got screwed over with scheduling; and it could have worked out some of its issues with more time. What stings is that it was doing better ratings-wise than some of the shows Fox has this season.

  • Love 2

 

 

 

You mean Almost Human with Karl Urban. Even though it had problems, I too mourn its cancellation. It got screwed over with scheduling; and it could have worked out some of its issues with more time. What stings is that it was doing better ratings-wise than some of the shows Fox has this season.

 

"Scheduling" is the wrong word, I think, because it suggests simply a bad timeslot or delayed episodes.  There's probably another word for the show being aired completely out of order and thus going from what would have only been a marginally bad show to a total waste of electrons.

  • Love 2

I'm so in agreement on Twin Peaks, Sports Night, and Don't Trust The B---- in Apartment 23. Some others:

 

Yearbook - This falls into the "ahead of its time" category. This was a reality show (before it was its own genre!) that followed several students at Glenbard West High School in the suburbs of Chicago during the 1990-91 school year. (One of the girls featured on that show lived on my dorm floor at college the next year.)

Models Inc.

Freshman Dorm

Hellcats

GCB

Becoming - MTV show that had fans "become" their favorite artists/groups and recreate a music video. 

Wasn't Firefly on FOX and that show suffered from out of orderites as well.

In the case with Almost Human it was to get the "bangbot" episode upfront. I had a science problem with the human shaped androids being essentially gunships with a CSI lab analyzer on board. An old Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons movie Runaway was closer to what I think how  robotics will be brought into use. Sex aides seem the only real reason for human shapes.

There are so many, all I think already mentioned here.   Firefly, Eyes, Threshold, Better Off Ted,  last year Vegas, and this year Selfie.  But the two that make me the most insane with heartbreak are Totally Biased and Terriers.  TERRIERS TERRIERS TERRIERS.  Jesus.  I don't think I will ever get over that one.

Edited by ratgirlagogo
  • Love 3

I haven't seen the whole thread yet, but this weird phenomenon has to be addressed:

 

In 1991, three different period shows premiered, one on each of the Big Three networks. All three were cancelled after two seasons in 1993. ABC had Homefront, CBS had Brooklyn Bridge.

 

 

Loved, loved, loved Brooklyn Bridge.  Wonderful actors and Art Garfunkle's beautiful singing at the start of each show was absolutely perfect. Just remembering all these shows from back in the day makes most of today's TV programming (IMO) so depressing.

  • Love 1

And I add High Incident (police show from the mid 90's starring David Keith and Matt Craven)

 

I wasn't alone on Saturday(?) nights watching this! No one else I know remembers or is willing to claim watching this, but then again, it was a weekend show.  Yeah, it was a cop procedural, but the stories were just varied enough to feel specific for the show.  Like an actual earthquake two-parter! In all my police show watching, until then, I don't believe any procedural set in L.A./SoCal had shown police reaction. Emergency! may have, but that was from the paramedic POV.

 

I think Best Friends Forever and Trophy Wife will be sore spots for a while.  (I am glad they landed Playing House, but I was loving the BFF gang.)

 

As for Almost Human and Fox's episode "strategy"? Maybe calling it "Firefly'd" might give viewers a better sense?

I don't think Almost Human was as good as Firefly. I'm not a "JW is a modern god" type of person, and I think Farscape is a superior show. I think Almost Human is on par with Human Target. Which I just realized both have human in the title. 

 

But they are both b movie action adventure shows. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that every tv show has to be the best thing ever in the history of television right the fuck now this second forever. Show's aren't allowed to be just good. 

 

Almost Human and Human Target were good shows. They didn't get a fair shake. In this modern age of tv watching, airing a show out of order is patently stupid and any tv exec who suggests as such should be fired on the spot. 

  • Love 3

I don't think Almost Human was as good as Firefly.

I don't think anyone here said that's the case. There's just a natural comparison between two shows on the same network that had some of the same network problems. But Almost Human, even in order, wouldn't be a pimple on the butt of Firefly, qualitywise.

Almost Human and Human Target were good shows. They didn't get a fair shake. In this modern age of tv watching, airing a show out of order is patently stupid and any tv exec who suggests as such should be fired on the spot. 

 

At a minimum, any TV exec that suggests this should be required to put up the money to fix the glaring continuity errors.  I have never been so confused as when I watched season 1 of the Mindy Project and characters were vanishing and returning.  I think there was one nurse that had a storyline about returning to the practice that I swear she hadn't been fired from yet.

Aw man; y'all brought up Human Target. It didn't get Firefly'd, but it did get Fox'd in it's second season. The network meddling was strong with that one. And it was an awesome B-movie action show -- at least in the first season. (They flew a jetliner upside-down, y'all.)

 

I wouldn't class Almost Human as an action show, though. I think they were aiming for something closer to Fringe.

 

-----------

In the 'never got a fair shot' category, Day Break, with Taye Diggs. I remember ABC marketed it as a sort of "Lost replacement" (airing during its break), and apparently Lost fans didn't want to watch a "replacement". It was pulled early, and the episodes put online ... eventually.  I feel the marketing killed this one.

  • Love 1

In the 'never got a fair shot' category, Day Break, with Taye Diggs. I remember ABC marketed it as a sort of "Lost replacement" (airing during its break), and apparently Lost fans didn't want to watch a "replacement". It was pulled early, and the episodes put online ... eventually.  I feel the marketing killed this one.

 

I rather enjoyed Day Break, but I found it online long after it was axed. I didn't realize all the episodes didn't air. That's really too bad, they should've burned it off at the very least. I don't think I would've been interested in another season, but as a one-and-done sort of series, it was pretty good.

I don't think anyone here said that's the case. There's just a natural comparison between two shows on the same network that had some of the same network problems. But Almost Human, even in order, wouldn't be a pimple on the butt of Firefly, qualitywise.

 

Hence why I brought up Human Target as a more apt comparison. 

Fox has always had a schizophrenic approach to television - the studio that actually produces the content goes for quirky high-concept series and creators with fresh new ideas, but the people on the airing end don't know how to market or program such content and get trigger happy on changing timeslots and pulling the plug before an audience can find a show. I actually think it's a minor miracle shows like Glee and Raising Hope got multiple seasons.

  • Love 2

Oh, there are so many, I don't know where to start. Someone mentioned "GCB" upthread, and "Homefront." On ABC, there was also "Invasion," which was slow and weird; "Don't Trust the B---"; "The Neighbors"; "Better Off Ted." Even though it got three seasons, I would still count "Happy Endings" on the cancelled before its time list. On Fox just last year, there was "Surviving Jack," Chris Meloni's sitcom, and "Enlisted," which got better and better. I'm sure I could go on and on. 

At a minimum, any TV exec that suggests this should be required to put up the money to fix the glaring continuity errors.  I have never been so confused as when I watched season 1 of the Mindy Project and characters were vanishing and returning.  I think there was one nurse that had a storyline about returning to the practice that I swear she hadn't been fired from yet.

 

I honestly don't understand how this happens as often as it does. I get that networks want the best episodes of a series to show up early, because you don't want something weak (or even low key) because you don't want the second or third episode to not be something that can't grab viewers. But don't TV writers know this. Why not make your first few episodes the strongest of the first half of the season. And can't writers and execs tell the good episodes from the bad, just from reading the scrips, so that episode orders can be moved around before filming has finished. I mean networks have the power to do that, since the only show I have ever heard of where the writers have complete creative control is The Simpsons. I mean I get that in some cases things slip through and you don't notice that one episode is better than the other until you see it on a screen, but with how often it happens it makes me wonder how good these people are at their jobs.

Add me to the Fox'd list. Reunion, Tru Calling and most of all, the wonderful Point Pleasant. That one hurt for a long while.

Tru Calling got about a season and  half worth of episodes though, which is better than a lot of other shows. And from the bunch of first season episodes I saw, it wasn't that great of a show. Eliza Dushku isn't a very good actress, at least not strong enough of one to carry a show.

  • Love 2

 

Almost Human and Human Target were good shows. They didn't get a fair shake. In this modern age of tv watching, airing a show out of order is patently stupid and any tv exec who suggests as such should be fired on the spot.

 

As a counter argument, I'd say Happy Endings as a huge example of a show that benefited from airing out of order. Sure, it was confusing but the show got so much better the more they ditched the plot about Alex being a runaway bride that it was really wise for ABC to air the later episodes first. Those were so good you didn't care why the continuity was mixed up.

 

Unfortunately, as a huge fan of the Vertigo Comic, I couldn't get past Human Target ditching the entire point of the character. Once they ditched the core premise, they should have changed the name.

  • Love 1

For Almost Human, I can give Fox a pass for wanting to air the sexbot episode up front; whatever I get it. Showing the other episodes out of order didn't make sense. The show was (semi-) serialized, and the first few episodes had direct callbacks to questions/plot points raised in the Pilot; so waiting weeks for answers detracted from the overall impression of  the show.

  • Love 1

As a counter argument, I'd say Happy Endings as a huge example of a show that benefited from airing out of order. Sure, it was confusing but the show got so much better the more they ditched the plot about Alex being a runaway bride that it was really wise for ABC to air the later episodes first. Those were so good you didn't care why the continuity was mixed up.

 

Happy Endings was one of the shows I was thinking about in my post above. And I agree that in that case the responsibility for the  fact that the show was aired out of order kind of falls on the writers. Because those later episodes were better. And if you want your show to be successful you should make sure people see the really fun/ good stuff as early as possible. 

Execs don't want serialized shows. If you're making a show more like a novel, it won't work on the broadcast networks. Boardwalk Empire was sllloooooow. The cable networks are embracing the serialized concept because the season order is shorter and they are more with how people watch tv. The broadcast networks want time for ads. 

Happy Endings was one of the shows I was thinking about in my post above. And I agree that in that case the responsibility for the  fact that the show was aired out of order kind of falls on the writers. Because those later episodes were better. And if you want your show to be successful you should make sure people see the really fun/ good stuff as early as possible. 

 

Shouldn't TPTB be trying to make all their episode evenly good?

Execs don't want serialized shows. If you're making a show more like a novel, it won't work on the broadcast networks. Boardwalk Empire was sllloooooow. The cable networks are embracing the serialized concept because the season order is shorter and they are more with how people watch tv. The broadcast networks want time for ads. 

 

Serialized shows don't work in reruns, either.

I don't know what this means. Aren't all television shows serialized? Do you mean syndicated?

I meant shows that have a through storyline.  If you need to watch multiple episodes of a show to see the story arc from beginning to middle to end, that doesn't work with reruns, which a network may run for four weeks in January and two months at most in the summer, with an occasional rerun episode here and there throughout the season.  The arc gets broken up and never completed.

Execs don't want serialized shows. If you're making a show more like a novel, it won't work on the broadcast networks. Boardwalk Empire was sllloooooow. The cable networks are embracing the serialized concept because the season order is shorter and they are more with how people watch tv. The broadcast networks want time for ads. 

They don't now but TV changes all the time and everyone copies everyone else's hits. All it will take is for another Lost to hit it big and the networks will be scrambling to find serialized dramas to get on the air. Because that is what exactly happened in 2004  People might be saying that serialized shows are dead, but it wasn't that long ago that people were saying the sitcom was dead. And when sitcoms were big (in the 90's I think) people were saying drama on TV was dead. 

  • Love 1

They don't now but TV changes all the time and everyone copies everyone else's hits. All it will take is for another Lost to hit it big and the networks will be scrambling to find serialized dramas to get on the air. Because that is what exactly happened in 2004 People might be saying that serialized shows are dead, but it wasn't that long ago that people were saying the sitcom was dead. And when sitcoms were big (in the 90's I think) people were saying drama on TV was dead.

Sci Fi shows have been dead and uhhh undead routinely. I actually hate shows that aren't serialized but then I am a story person. Tell me a good story and I am yours for life..

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Love 1

They don't now but TV changes all the time and everyone copies everyone else's hits. All it will take is for another Lost to hit it big and the networks will be scrambling to find serialized dramas to get on the air. Because that is what exactly happened in 2004  People might be saying that serialized shows are dead, but it wasn't that long ago that people were saying the sitcom was dead. And when sitcoms were big (in the 90's I think) people were saying drama on TV was dead.

Execs don't like serialized shows because they don't syndicate well. Lost was a big hit at the time but it's not exactly burning up the airwaves in syndication (in fact, I never see it). They like the shows that will make them money long after the shows go off the air, which is why they tend to like sitcoms. They're not really serialized and only a half an hour (which sells better than the hour-long shows).

  • Love 3

I tend to enjoy shows that are serial more then those that aren't. I want to have each episode build on what happened previously not only that season but the whole show. I want to be trying to figure out what will happen next and care what happens the characters. Shows where everything mostly sets back at the beginning is boring and generally lacks good character development. Few shows have truely been able to pull it off to the point where the show is more like a book then a tv show.

 

As for syndication these shows work as long as the viewer has seen the show. I can turn on a random Lost episode and follow it just fine. Of course I was a die-heart fan that has seen almost every episode more then once.

Who watches syndicated shows anymore though? There's always something new to watch. I have yet to rewatch an episode of anything since like Farscape. 

I am wondering about that too. Are syndicated reruns that big a deal anymore? Maybe it is just because I never have time any more, but I looked at a few channels in my area that used to show syndicated reruns all the time (either before primtime or right after). They seem to do it a lot less. It seems to be a lot more entertainment shows or locally produced stuff. This is Canada mind you but I am not sure why it wouldn't be the same thing in the US.  But your absolutely right there is so much new stuff always coming out. I have the complete series sets of The Wire and Deadwood, and for the longest time I have wanted to rewatch the, but with all the new stuff available (and the limited amount of time I have for watching TV shows that are kid friendly) it is difficult.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...