And I thought I was going to need more hard drives... :)

[Slugger]

Well, I probably will still upgrade my storage over the summer, but every couple hours today I see postings of 2010-11 freshman shows being cancelled. I never even started watching any of these shows (Detroit 1-8-7, The Chicago Code, others). I decided to record them all and start watching them in the summer after seeing if any of them would be returning in the fall. Why invest in a season of something if it's not coming back? Well, I'm glad I went with this strategy because most of these shows apparently didn't do too well and every couple hours I'm going into Sage and toasting off full seasons of stuff, gaining back 60-90 GB of space at a time. So far today, I think I've recovered almost 100 GB worth of space. Definitely gives me more than enough space to last me the rest of May. By the looks of it, my cleaning up isn't quite done yet.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by Slugger

Why invest in a season of something if it's not coming back?

Why read a novel if it's not the first book of a trilogy? Because it might be worth it all on its own. Just because a show gets canceled doesn't mean it sucks. On the contrary, quite often the shows that push boundaries and break out of well-worn ruts are the first ones to get the axe.

I do something similar to you, recording full seasons of various shows before I get around to trying them. But I always make a point of watching two or three episodes before deciding whether to nuke it. Even if it's not coming back, it might still be a better use of my TV time than whatever they're replacing it with.

[SWKerr]

Detroit 1-8-7, The Chicago Code I like both of these but I guess there is too much depth to the characters for a network to support them. I saw where Lie to Me was also on the list and I think that is a great show. Maybe they will get picked up by USA or something.

[Fonceur]

Firefly and other shows got cancelled in their first season, doesn't mean it's not worth watching...

[david1234]

Originally Posted by SWKerr

Detroit 1-8-7, The Chicago Code I like both of these but I guess there is too much depth to the characters for a network to support them. I saw where Lie to Me was also on the list and I think that is a great show. Maybe they will get picked up by USA or something.

Sorry guys! It's my fault. If I like the show it will be cancelled.

[Slugger]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Why read a novel if it's not the first book of a trilogy? Because it might be worth it all on its own. Just because a show gets canceled doesn't mean it sucks. On the contrary, quite often the shows that push boundaries and break out of well-worn ruts are the first ones to get the axe.

I do something similar to you, recording full seasons of various shows before I get around to trying them. But I always make a point of watching two or three episodes before deciding whether to nuke it. Even if it's not coming back, it might still be a better use of my TV time than whatever they're replacing it with.

Originally Posted by Fonceur

Firefly and other shows got cancelled in their first season, doesn't mean it's not worth watching...

Very true, and sitcoms I end up watching anyway (looking for a laugh or two, if not, delete those too). The book analogy doesn't quite hold because any single novel worth reading has, presumably, a well defined beginning, middle, and end. Dramas like Detroit 1-8-7 and The Chicago Code probably were expecting a second season and so I assume that those dramas will not have a satisfying ending, possibly even a cliffhanger end of the season. Nothing worse than investing in 13-23 hours of a show, knowing it's not coming back, only to hit a cliffhanger ending. No thanks! I actually used to watch the freshman dramas anyway (if I liked the first episode or two), but over the last year or so there seems to be less and less tv watching time available to me and so shows that I know aren't coming back and that I have no prior investment in simply get the axe right off the bat. I've got a few dozen movies I've recorded over the winter and other shows that are coming back to keep me occupied. I've actually been told by friends that Chicago Code was pretty good and never heard anything about Detroit 1-8-7, but, as I say, they aren't coming back and I've got 2+ TB worth of other stuff to watch in the meantime.

Originally Posted by SWKerr

Detroit 1-8-7, The Chicago Code I like both of these but I guess there is too much depth to the characters for a network to support them. I saw where Lie to Me was also on the list and I think that is a great show. Maybe they will get picked up by USA or something.

I hate when this happens. I don't get USA nor FX, etc. Two shows I liked were picked up by USA (I think). L&O: CI and Southland. Unfortunately when this happens the shows simply vanish for me.

[sleonard]

I agree with Slugger. I hate to get left hanging at the end of a canceled show. The better the show the more I hate it. At least Firefly came back with a 2 hour movie to wrap things up properly. Most of the time you're forced to just let go.

Every time a show gets canceled without a proper ending a fan should be allowed to slap a network executive as hard as he/she can

S

[GKusnick]

I actually find the opposite more objectionable, where as soon as the producers know they're going to be picked up for a second season, all the interesting plot developments get postponed and they just start making stuff up at random. Lost is a notorious recent example of this.

Going back a couple of decades, Twin Peaks would have been one of the great TV shows of all time if they had just stuck to their original plan and wrapped up the story in six or seven episodes. But no, they let themselves be talked into an open-ended format, and any semblance of coherent plotting went out the window real quick. Getting renewed is definitely not a guarantee of plot satisfaction.

For all its flaws, I think 24 had the right approach to this, where each season you knew you were going to get a complete story, beginning to end, in 24 consecutive episodes with no timeouts and no reruns, and without regard to what might or might not happen next year.

[Slugger]

Good point and I have to agree. Definitely being picked up for season two doesn't mean a show is going to be good or that I'm going to like it or that it's is going to have a good ending eventually. Conversely, a single season show can also be good, if it knows well enough in advance it's only going to be one season. And this is where I draw my line (these days). These two shows, especially Detroit 187 since I always saw postings about how it was on the bubble with ABC, didn't meet that criteria so no investment from me.

And I know you're not knocking Jack Bauer!!

[heffneil]

Originally Posted by GKusnick

Why read a novel if it's not the first book of a trilogy? Because it might be worth it all on its own. Just because a show gets canceled doesn't mean it sucks. On the contrary, quite often the shows that push boundaries and break out of well-worn ruts are the first ones to get the axe.

I do something similar to you, recording full seasons of various shows before I get around to trying them. But I always make a point of watching two or three episodes before deciding whether to nuke it. Even if it's not coming back, it might still be a better use of my TV time than whatever they're replacing it with.

Yeah but in your scenario it's like getting halfway through the book and the rest of the pages are blank. The writers don't know the show is getting cancelled and a lot of loose ends aren't wrapped up.

[Skirge01]

I've said this myself and ready it again somewhere else recently. The US studios need to use the same approach British shows do and write each season to run on its own. There should be no loose ends when the season concludes. They can still make references to other things, which they can explore in another season, but no hanging plot lines which get no resolution. LOST is the perfect example of a US show doing this. Doctor Who is a great example of how British shows effectively do the right thing.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I've said this myself and ready it again somewhere else recently. The US studios need to use the same approach British shows do and write each season to run on its own. There should be no loose ends when the season concludes. They can still make references to other things, which they can explore in another season, but no hanging plot lines which get no resolution. LOST is the perfect example of a US show doing this. Doctor Who is a great example of how British shows effectively do the right thing.

What I don't get is why they think these shows with a very deep plot is going to be instantly successful the first episode. Chicago Code was very good, but if you tried to jump in on episode 4 you would be lost. I guess that is why the CSI's and Law and Order's do so well is because each episode has it's own plot. You don't really need to know any back story. Granted they aren't all that good, but you don't have to watch every episode to know what's going on.

I guess that ties into what you were saying about having a season have it's own plot with a beginning, middle and end. Dexter is pretty good about that.

My wife thinks that people in general aren't smart enough to grasp the show we think are good. Their attention span is only long enough for a single episode, and remembering what happens from one to the other is too much effort. Basically, she thinks they are stupid. Comes back to the whole "instant gratification thing". The same can be said for why people don't read any more when they could just go watch the movie. Makes me sad.

Ii personally think that if they are going to cancel a show they should at least let the season complete.

[wayner]

Just because a show doesn't get cancelled doesn't mean that it won't leave you hanging - even if it was extraordinarily well written.

Remember the last episode of The Sopranos?

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by wayner

Just because a show doesn't get cancelled doesn't mean that it won't leave you hanging - even if it was extraordinarily well written.

Remember the last episode of The Sopranos?

Nope... never watched a single episode. From what I hear, I don't think I missed anything either.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

My wife thinks that people in general aren't smart enough to grasp the show we think are good. Their attention span is only long enough for a single episode, and remembering what happens from one to the other is too much effort. Basically, she thinks they are stupid. Comes back to the whole "instant gratification thing". The same can be said for why people don't read any more when they could just go watch the movie. Makes me sad.

I would have to agree almost completely with that. I think the Brits have a great compromise there, though. Expecting people to follow and remember the story for 5-10 seasons is ridiculous. This is why shows generally have flashbacks or "recap" episodes. Here's a hint for the studios: If you have to remind people what happened already, you've got too much going on.

Ii personally think that if they are going to cancel a show they should at least let the season complete.

Couldn't agree more. This would make more sense and work to their benefit, if they would follow the seasonal story arcs. While we may prefer that a show continues, if they at least HAVE an ending, then most people aren't going to be all that upset. It's the big damn cliffhangers that p1ss people off.

[sleonard]

Who shot J.R.?


See you next year!

[Zippster]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

My wife thinks that people in general aren't smart enough to grasp the show we think are good. Their attention span is only long enough for a single episode, and remembering what happens from one to the other is too much effort. Basically, she thinks they are stupid. Comes back to the whole "instant gratification thing". The same can be said for why people don't read any more when they could just go watch the movie. Makes me sad.

Ii personally think that if they are going to cancel a show they should at least let the season complete.

Your wife is a smart person, todays society on the whole wants more mindless reality tv crap that you can sit and voyeour on and not think about anything but bs..............

[stevech]

<begin rant> We're just dumbfounded that previously good content on Discovery, Food Channel, National Geographic, have been replaced, in prime time, with exploding cakes, river monsters, supposed scripted near-death reality, chef cook-offs, travel to dumb places to eat god-awful/sensational beasts, and other trash spill-over from Spike and MTV. Even A&E in prime time is garbage.

Yes, they run what sells ads. But I really wonder about these NON-NETWORK content providers that we all pay a lot to Cox/TimeWarner for:

Do they run a year of this crap to find the ratings demographics are providing sponsors with viewers who have no money? Then try for some other cheap-to-buy crap but the ad revenue is just enough?

Are there so many channels now that each content provider cuts costs of buying shows so low that they're happy to take a tiny share, and the advertisers don't care what kind of viewers they have?

Some that we find has some good or at least tolerable content are Cooking Channel, Planet Green, and some non-prime-time from some of those listed above.

Another undesirable trend is that they run episodes from the same show back to back for hours on end. Esp. on holiday weekends.
<end rant>
No wonder DVRs are increaslingly popular - and problematic (for advertisers).

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by stevech

Yes, they run what sells ads. But I really wonder about these NON-NETWORK content providers that we all pay a lot to Cox/TimeWarner for ...

I think many of these channels struggle for ad revenue. About a year ago I looked into running some TV ads for my real-world job and I was amazed at just how cheap it was. The higher priced channels (Food, Travel, NatGeo) cost about $30 per 30 second prime-time ad. They also threw in one non-prime-time ad for free. The cheap channels were around $10.

I live in a fairly rural area so I'm sure the cost is higher in metro areas, but it's still pretty cheap. I guess you get what you pay for.

[stevech]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

The higher priced channels (Food, Travel, NatGeo) cost about $30 per 30 second prime-time ad. They also threw in one non-prime-time ad for free. The cheap channels were around $10.

I live in a fairly rural area so I'm sure the cost is higher in metro areas, but it's still pretty cheap. I guess you get what you pay for.

Wow. I'd guess that the $30 cost/30 sec. prime time is like 10K or more for a major market.

But yes, we're still moving fast to a quantity not quality TV market. So the mere existence is going away of more than a spit of good shows.