Due mostly to comments on this blog, I've thought a lot more than I otherwise would've about why some shows appeal to a broad audience and some shows don't.
For purposes of this discussion, I am making no commentary regarding the quality of shows. Quality is a very subjective metric. There are many factors at play beyond quality anyway. There's a show's time slot, what it's competition is, and yes, how much money the network spent promoting a show.
Networks are often derided for the same old same old. Whether it be crime procedurals or unscripted reality contests. But who can blame the networks for sticking with formulas that generally work? What some fans want to know it seems is "why" it works out the way it does.
At a general level, it's pretty simple. The easier the buy-in, the better the chances of success. Here's something we buy into easily: competition and contests. So whether it's American Idol or Survivor, if you can make it entertaining and interesting a relatively large portion of the audience already buys into the premise. This buy-in is a very critical factor.
This is why many law, crime and medical procedurals succeed with broader audiences. The premises are bought into easily. Good Guys, bad guys and cunning and cool forensic technology to solve a crime? People saving lives and falling for the people they work with? We buy into this easily, because it does happen (even if it probably happens with a much higher frequency on television than in real life).
A guy who can briefly bring someone back to life simply by touching them? But must touch them again quickly or *someone else* will die? Much, much harder to buy into. And it's easy to understand why that's harder to buy into: we aren't aware of anyone who can do this in real life. Not one, single, solitary person. And so, under the *best* of circumstances (and I'm not suggesting in any way that the best of circumstances existed), a show like Pushing Daisies has an uphill climb. No matter how much *you* may enjoy the show, the multitudes will have difficulty buying into this premise.
A future where robots kill off humanity? That's hard to buy into for a couple of reasons. One, it's fantastical and even if you can suspend disbelief, for many people an apocalyptic future spelling doom for humanity is not their idea of entertainment. That's pretty easy to understand. So under the best of circumstances the odds of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (or , for that matter, Battlestar Galactica) resonating with a relatively large audience were not good.
What's more surprising, are the exceptions that prove the rule. It's not 100%. There are some pretty fantastical shows like Heroes, LOST and Fringe, and these shows perform relatively very well. Though Heroes is way down off of its freshman glow, it was still a top 10 show among 18-49 year olds the week before last and will certainly be in the top 20 for some time to come. Fringe isn't generating huge viewer numbers, but among the 18-49 year old crowd that advertisers tend to focus on, Fringe has performed very well early on. Fringe takes an interesting approach, the premise (overall, and each week) is typically fantastical, but the main characters are archetypes we are familiar with and relative to the fantastical premise, the interpersonal relationships are fairly normal.
Heroes and Lost are fantastical in every way, but are serial shows rather than procedural. Their success may be hard to pinpoint and bottle up, but due to such success the networks will at least try (try, try again) to replicate their success. Fringe and Pushing Daisies are more procedural - they can (have, and will) have weekly installments that don't focus much on the back story and can stand alone. My sense is Fringe, as a procedural, works better than Pushing Daisies because though the premise is generally something on the fringe (duh, the show is called Fringe!), the main characters themselves do not require as much buy-in as Pushing Daisies.
So what about a show like NBC's Life? Life doesn't really have a fantastical premise. It's not quite a typical premise in that the central character was a cop, who spent a fair bit of time in jail for a crime he didn't commit, winds up being exonerated, receives a huge ($50 million-ish) settlement from the city of Los Angeles and, rejoins the LA police force. You have to buy into the premise that a guy who has spent years in jail and is now free with $50 million plus in the bank, wants to go back to work as a cop. Okay, perhaps that is a fantastical premise.
Life in my purely subjective opinion has improved this year. I think the problem with Life is that it has been too much of a hybrid between a serial and a procedural. Last year the back story was long, intricate and often with a plodding pace. It seems this year they've tried to move to more of a procedural bias, and I think that's smart. The problem is there is still a fair bit of focus on the back story and it would be hard, for example for people to tune into last Friday's episode and understand the intricacies of the relationship between Crews and Jack Reese. Fortunately for me and the rest of the fans of the shows, the show has been snatched out of the Friday night ghetto. While it will have very stiff competition at 9pm Wednesdays beginning November 5, 2008, I like its prospects on Wednesday better than Friday.
What about Life on Mars? I think sadly, this was a show that needed to be on cable and was never going to appeal to a broad audience for two reasons:
- The buy-in isn't easy. The central character just winds up in 1973. Buy in would be hard even with a time-travel device of some sort, but this requires a high suspension of disbelief
- Even if you can get over number one above (and I can) then what you're looking at is a cop procedural set in 1973.
Since I like science fiction and also really like the premise of a cop procedural set in 1973, but seen from the eyes of 2008, I really hope Life on Mars can catch on with a wider audience. But I think the wider audience is going to basically say, "Hey, if I want to see crime drama from 1970s, I'll just watch the Dirty Harry movies from the 1970s, and use my own 2008 eyes to observe the differences!"
It's hard to find fault with such an approach.
I agree with many of the points. And i think myself as a perfect example. I never liked and i’ll probably never like shows with SF/fantasy elements . I can’t really explain why but that’s a fact. The only show with SF elements i’ve watched and enjoyed was X-Files, but other than that nothing. I suppose i’m in a majority, SF (or shows with SF elements) are rarely succesfull
While quality is definitely subjective one must also notice that Pushing Daisies is essentially pitched as a mystery procedural with a twist. If the show was more serious or aimed more for male viewers the show’s premise isn’t a bad one. The real problem with Pushing Daisies is it’s “too cute.” You also are asked to buy a premise where two people can’t touch but “fall in love.” That to me is much harder to believe than the ability to “re-animate,” the dead.
In fact the whole “Chuck,” character to me is the weakest link. One I don’t find her personality attractive at all (and I’m not alone on this with guys). Two I don’t find her physically all that attractive (but that could be from the horrible wardrobe choices). Three every person the Pie Maker touches comes to life as a re-animated corpse. They all look nasty, etc. “Chuck,” on the otherhand seems to be implied she is “alive again,” vs re-animated like every other corpse the Pie Maker touches. That’s just a major story design flaw.
So they’ve gone out of their way with that show to make it hard to connect with a large audience. In addition it’s harder to “grow,” a show like that, and all the show seems to be doing is crumbling. They’ve paid for 13 episodes, and the production continues on the show and likely will even if canceled for DVD purposes. So I say cancel it, and let the show’s writers write a series finale.
Nick, I agree with you on Chuck. While I love the show, mostly for the look (I’ve been threatened with bodily harm by certain people if I don’t shut up about the mis en scene), I find the not being able to touch thing something that it won’t be able to get passed and likely would’ve done better without it. And the end of this week’s episode was a complete WTF? with Chuck showing up naked in Ned’s apartment. Seemed almost just plain mean.
I like fantasy/sci-fi shows, if those shows (Pushing Daisies/Life on Mars) are a movie it will be a hit.
I think the audience watch shows that shows that people don’t have to watch all of the episodes just to catch up and has a new storyline every week like crime shows and medical shows.
I think drama/crime/comedies/medical shows are big in TV and rare to be a hit in movies, while action/sci-fi/fantasy are big in movies and rare to be a hit in TV.
You know, I think what is going to end up being a bit problem for LOM if it picks up steam and doesn’t get canceled too quickly is that the concept does not belong in a long serial. If they manage to keep it fresh for even one whole (22 episode) season, they’ll be lucky. It’s not a concept that can last much longer than that.
Bit=big
Life On Mars on the other hand isn’t a hard to believe scenario. The man is NOT in 1973 but in a coma. 1973 is entirely how his mind is dealing with being hit by a car. The only question really is what the producers plan to do with the show. In England the show ended after its second season with the character killing himself after waking up from the coma and deciding his life was better in the coma. The original series was incredibly interesting and fun.
The series does have a “sequel,” in England where another person ends up in a coma and this time in 1980 or something. The thing is that 1980 is the same 1980 as the coma inflicted original character. In other words the original character’s actions in 1973 are remembered in the 1980 coma.
That made the original series even more interesting. If they shake things up and have it involving multiple “patients,” over multiple seasons they may have something interesting.
Sorry, but your information about UK’s sequel isn’t completely accurate. I’m only half-way through watching it myself, but as far as I understood, sequel’s premise was how that female lead character worked and/or researched Sam’s notes (in present day) that he recorded after waking up. That knowledge gave her the “how-to” for dealing with the exact same situation herself – there wasn’t any sort of mentality transmission going on.
Sorry for going off-topic here but I really wanted to clarify.
“Heroes and Lost are fantastical in every way”
Heroes is fantastically bad and Lost is actually fantastic. Not the same thing.
I like Life because it is a exploration of what life and freedom mean. What is the meaning of life if you aren’t free from addictions or problems. Charlie’s Zen made him free in prison because his mind wasn’t imprisoned. Now that he is out he wants to gain back what he lost – his wife, friends and job. These tangents that are explored add a lot of depth to the show. Plus the acting is superb – Damian Lewis could read the phone book and be riveting.
Good points, but you forot to mention that most people working network TV have ADD when it comes to programing. If the crime/relationship/contest/quirk is not resolved in 42 minutes they lose interest.
Nick, there was no decisive answer as to whether 1976 was a coma or whether the present day was imagined. It was very much left to your own interpretation. (See: Cutting himself and not feeling anything when in the meeting in present day.)
RE: Chuck on Pushing Daisies.
I actually find her character “normal” compared to the others, which I think grounds the show a little bit or else the other much more quirkier characters would get grating. I find her more attractive and less annoying than the Olive character.
But I think the problem with the show that I have heard from many people is that it is too “gag worthy cute.” That’s mostly due to the romance, but at the same time, I find the procedural element of the show the weakest part. The murders/mysteries are often very painfully obvious or just too out there to grab my attention. I watch for the characters, dialogue and visuals. But I can see why many would be turned off by the show
Julia: Ned mentioned contraptions, there are ways around such things.
Sadly, I’m afraid that your assessment of TV audiences is largely on target. The masses lack imagination and are intolerant of anything that requires them to stretch their minds too much, even if the writing, acting, etc are exceptional.
That said, I think a show like Pushing Daises is ridiculous, not because it is too imaginative, but rather its premise does not make for enjoyable storytelling. A show like this is more like showing off (“look how out-of-the-box we can think”) than trying to tell a story that is thoughtful, meaningful, and something you want to spend time with week after week.
Shows like Heroes, Lost, Fringe, and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles find an audience not just by being creative but by making a serious attempt at good storytelling. Unfortunately, not everyone in TV production understands this, which is why poor, superficial attempts at whimsical escapism like Pushing Daises appear on the scene. Hopefully we continue to get more of the former shows and less of the latter.
Do TV production executives understand this distinction? I’m not sure they do; it may be beyond the cognitive abilities of the kind of shallow, superficial ladder-climbers that Corporate America seems to favor.
Joel,
I understand your point but I think you are limiting the range of programs that others may finding charming that you find ridiculous. Programmers should try to appeal to a broad audience that encompasses a variety of tastes. I do not like comedies or soap opera (Grey’s, Desperate Housewives) but obviously many do. I do enjoy procedurals and Science fiction so Fringe, Chuck, Stargate, Supernatural, Life, NCIS are more my type of shows. So if Pushing Daisies is not your type don’t ruin it for the many that enjoy something unique.
Y’know I think this question is almost, like asking why do people like to eat certain food over other ones…there are so many different reasons why people watch certain shows and pass on other programmes. It can be a difference between actors/actresses (charisma factor), type of story, genre (I don’t think it matters as much people make it out to be), network, promotions and marketing(not all shows get the same kind of hype), time slot, state of (American) culture, and general time (time period…era).
For example, a show, like the A-Team as is, could it last more than one seasons, if you took the same show (actors, writers, scripts, plots, and etc.) from circa 1984 and placed in modern day 2008…probably not. Same with Miami Vice, Cheers, and The Cosby Show…if those shows are made a few years later or earlier. Do you think you could expect to see the same results? Hard to conclude.
At the same time, shows, like Grey’s Anatomy or ER could very well flop in vice versa, if it both suddenly sent to the 1980s and forced to compete against the shows of the time in the same time slot. While, audience could find the actors of the shows totally uninspiring and not as likeable as other medical shows, like St. Elsewhere. You never know what audience will, like…I was shock to see a movie, like Beverly Hills Chihuahua do, really well at the box office and make it close $100 million worldwide.
I don’t agree with most of your points. I mean, why a show has to be “real” to have a good audience? And second, why a good audience means that a show is really good? “Star Trek – The Next Generation” was one of the hit shows of its time, and we never saw a single person being teleported to any place, or people in spaceships flying throughout the space as if they were driving a car. I don’t think that shows like PD (which is one of my favorites) don’t get a lot of audience because they’re way too surreal. I think that most of people just don’t get the show’s idea, which doesn’t mean that the show is not good (on the contrary, in my opinion, is one of the best nowadays). I think this is only your biased opinion about some shows you personally don’t like, like PD. Too bad.
Anva, that’s just dumb. I *loved* Star Trek TNG, but it ran on UPN, and for it’s day, it was NOWHERE near a hit. It was just, like say, Battlestar Galactica, a hit among SciFi fans.
What *you* personally like has no bearing on what happens in the aggregate. Me either.
@ Anya
Sci fi shows just seems more popular on the internet, because sci fi and technology go hand and hand. Supernatural and moonlight are perfect examples of this, you read tons blogs and posts about how great it is or people discussing it, but in reality on a segment of the population actually watches it
seem*