FX has not yet announced a renewal for Sons Of Anarchy, and at least according to his Twitter feed, show creator and executive producer Kurt Sutter is growing disillusioned by it all.
In his latest blog posts he ponders if speaking his mind is getting him into trouble and whether he should just keep his mouth shut. I'm as certain as I can be that Sons Of Anarchy will be renewed. I'm also pretty sure that Sutter will continue to speak his mind. But as much as Sons is my new favorite show, sutterink.blogspot.com is my new favorite blog. Though I don't think FX would be crazy enough to tell him "stop blogging or we won't renew your show", if they do, I hope he gives them the finger.
I can't see Sons not being picked up for a season three. But hey, I could be wrong. Dollhouse was boldly renewed for a second season, and I definitely got that wrong.
Speaking of Dollhouse, could it be that Sutter is a fan? In Sutter's latest blog post he recounts an impromptu encounter with a development executive outside of a Starbucks in Burbank who wished him dead. She wasn't too happy with the post about why most broadcast network scripted dramas suck. I'm sure there was a bit (or more) of writer's license being employed, but he describes a heated exchange where the executive defends her work:
KS: I'm serious. I want to believe you. You're probably right. Name something on your schedule that you're proud of. That's original. Smart. Great stories.
(She names two shows)
KS: First of all, I agree with you, (show 1) is original and interesting. So why are you pulling it off the air?
DG: It's not canceled.
KS: Of course it is. It's been yanked from the schedule and replaced with reruns.
That last line is definitely straight from the TVbytheNumbers playbook. But I got to thinking, what show has been yanked off the schedule and replaced with reruns but not yet officially canceled? Dollhouse, which was yanked from the schedule for November sweeps with its remaining episodes being burned off in December and beyond is the only show coming to mind. The Beautiful Life: TBL was yanked off the schedule and replaced with reruns, but it has been officially canceled, plus I can't envision a world where Sutter would've found it original and interesting.
Dollhouse fits the bill, and I'd agree at least in premise it's original and interesting. In execution, it hasn't always been interesting, though at least a few episodes have been. But if it's Dollhouse, I can answer the question of why they are pulling it off the air: a 0.8 Live+SD adults 18-49 rating.
A question that I’ve been wondering is:
Why should a Network employee care whether or not it’s line-up contains any shows that are “original. Smart. Great stories”? Their job is to maximize their profits. Usually that entails scoring the best numbers possible, but why should they care how, or with what, they obtain those numbers? If they place too great an importance on how “good” a show is, and that comes at the expense of their potential profits, then it would seem that they are not doing their jobs.
The majority of the available pool of television viewers is of average intelligence and average interests and so it would seem that they would best be served by average programming. A Network devoting resources to anything else seems like one that does not have it’s priorities in order.
was show #2 GLEE?
grr_argh,
It doesn’t look like we have enough information with which to speculate on what the second show might have been. There are only three programs that Fox has pulled off the air: Dollhouse, ‘Til Death and Brothers and so it is much easier to guess that Dollhouse might have been the one to which Sutter was referring.
AO, based on some of his other posts, I think Sutter probably agrees with you to a large extent. He has conceded that, as Bill noted, the accountants are taking over, and also that we get what we get because we watch what we watch.
I think (still not sure) his point is that if networks managed the development process differently you could get really great shows that a lot of people watched.
CBS takes a lot of flack that it’s not original with a slew of NCIS/CSI, and even for its comedies like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory. But whether you like CBS’ shows or not, it’s hard to argue with the results.
Grr_argh, I don’t think so. In another post he spoke well of Glee. it, Lost, and, yes, Chuck, were broadcast network shows he spoke well of.
@Robert
aw. well then it must be Fringe or Lie to Me. I must know. The curiosity will kill me. It can’t be House, 24, or Bones. There’s no reason to call those shows a POS. Plus, she’d be referencing old shows, and she wouldn’t want to be doing that or she’d give him more ammo for naming old shows.
grr_argh again, to what degree he was using writer’s license is unknown and he did not specify that the network is FOX. I guessed Dollhouse only because it’s the only show I could come up with that matched the first instance. But who knows. I doubt the second show would be Lie to Me only because of his relationship with Shawn Ryan who is now the showrunner for Lie To Me.
@Robert
that’s true about him probably not being harsh about Lie to Me because of his relationship with Shawn Ryan. Which makes me think that your guess that he was talking about Dollhouse as show #1 is the only one that makes sense. Two of the female writers for Dollhouse were also writers for Ryan’s The Shield. Meaning, Sutter must’ve been showing support and being defensive for Dollhouse because of his relationship with the staff. Just a thought.
Kurt Sutter does a point but I think network television isn’t as bad as he says and it has adapted to suit with the times but you can’t blame for being safe when a lot of risky shows fail to gain an audience, that’s why procedurals and soaps are very populars but they do take risks and sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn’t.
Even Cable shows aren’t that different, the USA shows are just different genre with the USA mould, TNT shows are slightly edgier version of Broadcast shows. Critics may praise shows from AMC and FX but when you look at the cable top 25, it’s usually USA and TNT who make the list most of the time.
I gotta go with my gut and say that conversation didn’t happen.
“I think (still not sure) his point is that if networks managed the development process differently you could get really great shows that a lot of people watched”.
I’d ideally like to believe that too, but I think that we have enough information to know that the majority of Americans want and will best respond to “entertaining” programs. It seems to me that finding a program that is both entertaining and good is a challenge and developing one that is both entertaining and great is even trickier. Given the choice, the Networks owe it to themselves and their shareholders to go with the most reliable route to profits. For PR purposes then I can understand how it makes sense for them to try to convince their audience that every show being offered will go down as one of the finest that the medium has ever offered, but it’s surprising that at least some of those Network employees would believe their own hype.
“CBS takes a lot of flack that it’s not original with a slew of NCIS/CSI, and even for its comedies like Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory. But whether you like CBS’ shows or not, it’s hard to argue with the results”.
Right. And the desirability of quality over profits is something that could be argued in another forum, but it continues to surprise me that people bring value judgements into the discussions here at this site. The quality of a show does not have any bearing to it’s ratings and/or profitability and CBS has done what it’s supposed to do, which is appeal to a larger number of Nielsen viewers, more often, than the majority of it’s competitors.
I disagree that there is a huge demand for “challenging” shows. Don’t people get challenged enough during the day? They just want to see something interesting or mildly amusing. So American Idol and NCIS are hits, and Smarter than a 5th Grader easily recoups its costs.
That’s why sci fi shows that deal with the big questions of life are ALWAYS relegated to 2 million viewers or less. The market just isn’t that big. It’s also why sci fi movies with giant explosions are consistently #1 at the box office.
I hope people in the thread won’t call them dumb for that. Are people dumb to prefer Gin Rummy to Poker? It’s all entertainment, after all.
Ha! That was another thread that suggested “challenging” shows. AO just said “challenge” and I had a thread flashback
From the clues, I agree that he’s talking about Dollhouse. There’s also the connection between his mentor, Shawn Ryan, and the Whedonverse (SR was a writer/producer for Angel, and Ryan/Whendon have shared various writers and actors over the years), so it only makes sense that Sutter would have respect for DH.
Could pissing off a network exec on your blog kill a marginal show? Sure, stranger things have happened.
Could it kill a show with the ratings that SoA has? No chance.
Is it possible that the second show could have been The Cleveland Show? I could imagine an executive saying they’re proud of it and someone else saying it’s a piece of shit.
#2 wasn’t GLEE because he’s stated he liked that show. I’d guess she said Lie To Me or Cleveland Show perhaps? “Job’s hard enough…” uh-huh. So difficult. Nothing he said was a direct insult to specific network functions. He laid into the lazy idiot-pandering nature of network television. The post was a call for executives to be more creative and to try new things. It’s pretty hilarious that her reaction is being bothered instead of actively trying to go about making change.
“Why should a Network employee care whether or not it’s line-up contains any shows that are “original. Smart. Great stories”? Their job is to maximize their profits. Usually that entails scoring the best numbers possible, but why should they care how, or with what, they obtain those numbers? If they place too great an importance on how “good” a show is, and that comes at the expense of their potential profits, then it would seem that they are not doing their jobs.”
So true, I’d love to see these people decrying FOX for doing their job (and other networks consistently cancel genre shows too Dresden Files, Painkiller Jane, Flash Gordon all only did a season or less on Sci-Fi channel), and seeing what excuses they came up with when they went break.
And if Dollhouse was so intelligent, you’d think it have a few less plot and characterisation holes in the writing.
“From the clues, I agree that he’s talking about Dollhouse. There’s also the connection between his mentor, Shawn Ryan, and the Whedonverse (SR was a writer/producer for Angel, and Ryan/Whendon have shared various writers and actors over the years), so it only makes sense that Sutter would have respect for DH.”
Well all of Hollyweird is a clique and nothing’s more clique than the Whedon gang.
“I’d ideally like to believe that too, but I think that we have enough information to know that the majority of Americans want and will best respond to “entertaining” programs. It seems to me that finding a program that is both entertaining and good is a challenge and developing one that is both entertaining and great is even trickier. Given the choice, the Networks owe it to themselves and their shareholders to go with the most reliable route to profits. For PR purposes then I can understand how it makes sense for them to try to convince their audience that every show being offered will go down as one of the finest that the medium has ever offered, but it’s surprising that at least some of those Network employees would believe their own hype.”
This is so true. I like most of the performances (barring the male lead who I think is terrible with his jaw clenching) if not the writing of Dollhouse.
But qualitive can always be argued, the numbers can’t. It’s a flop, you can argue that none of the shows on a Friday get high numbers, but you can’t argue it’s consistently last of four.
What execs have to ask themselves is can they a) find something that’ll bring them in more ratings and b) bring in more profits. That’s all that should concern them.