Terra Nova Cancelled

Fast Learner · Mar 8, 2012

There are so many comments about the first few episodes being bad and people never going back that it's no surprise the series is cancelled. In my opinion, the show significantly improved over time. While it still wasn't a must-see show for me, I genuinely enjoyed several of the last half-dozen episodes.

From that perspective it's a shame it won't get a second season, where I think it was likely to really come together.

Olgar Shiverstone · Mar 8, 2012

I canceled it after the first episode. What took Fox so long?

Kzach · Mar 9, 2012

Mercutio01 said:
EDIT - I'm honestly curious if you watched any of the shows mentioned. I have this sneaking suspicion that if I looked at your viewing history, it would show me two things. First, that you haven't actually watched them. Second, that I would probably consider your personal preferences for shows to be awful.

Funnily enough I take more offence to this than I do to being flipped an ASCII bird.

There's nothing smug about what I'm saying. I honestly believe that there is an objective means to determine whether a show is good or bad. It has nothing to do with opinion or personal bias and everything to do with the fundamental rules of entertainment and the creative processes behind it.

So as far as I'm concerned, those shows (all of which I've watched, and some of which I've even LIKED *shock*horror* I can objectively determine something is crap and still LIKE it! Oh my!) were badly made, and so deserved to be cancelled.

Now Firefly, OTOH, was an excellent show, excellently produced, written, directed, acted and yet through idiotic bureaucracy and poor management was cancelled.

Mercutio01 · Mar 9, 2012

I suppose your objective standard just doesn't line up with what I consider to be my objective standard. I think the writing for the shows I listed was smart. I think the direction for them was well-done. I think the acting was all pretty top-notch, and I think the production was excellent. Particularly with shows like Alien Nation and Sliders. Like I said, Dark Angel had some falling points in the middle of the first season and the beginning of the second, but overall I thought it was better than any of the various police procedurals floating about the networks.

I do think Firefly stands out above shows like The Lone Gunmen and Sarah Connor, but I don't think, objectively, it was "better" than Alien Nation or Dark Angel. I think there were some slow episodes and some misses with direction in Firefly as well.

Kzach · Mar 9, 2012

Mercutio01 said:
I suppose your objective standard just doesn't line up with what I consider to be my objective standard.

My objective standard could beat up your objective standard any day!

Dannyalcatraz · Mar 9, 2012

Hey, everybody...OBJECTIVE STANDARD FIGHT!

LightPhoenix · Mar 9, 2012

Dannyalcatraz said:
The successes tend to have better overall writing, air in a TV wasteland timeslot or some other innate advantage letting them grab market share quickly and firmly.

The failures get placed in a slot they can't reasonably expect to get enough share to meet expected ROI or get bounced around on the schedule so the viewership is always in flux.

TN was 3rd in its time slot, with a 24% share increase over what it replaced in that slot. But given its expense? It was always in danger of...well...extinction.

To use a Firefly/Serenity quote to appease Kzach... "I don't disagree on any particular point."

I actually do disagree on one implication - you imply that the ratings of shows on other networks matters. While it's certainly true that a popular show can result in other shows in the time slot getting lower ratings (see Big Bang Theory vs. Community/30 Rock), the ranking itself doesn't matter. A show only has to compete against other shows on it's own network for a slot on the schedule - or statistically speaking for scripted shows, perform at or better than the scripted show average of a network. There are numerous examples, but they all boil down to the idea that if shows are performing strongly on different networks at the same time, all will be renewed regardless of inter-network ranking.

NewJeffCT said:
It was made despite the costs because the named Steven Spielberg was attached to it. While his movie success has not translated to TV, I'm sure many TV network executives over the years have had dreams of a Spielberg show being the TV version of Jurassic Park or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Which is funny to me, because Spielberg's not a big TV guy. His biggest successes are Band of Brothers and Taken - both are miniseries on non-major networks. I believe he's an actual producer on Smash (versus being associated via Amblin) and it seems to be doing alright, but it's hardly in the same genre as JP/Raiders.

Dannyalcatraz · Mar 9, 2012

I actually do disagree on one implication - you imply that the ratings of shows on other networks matters. While it's certainly true that a popular show can result in other shows in the time slot getting lower ratings (see Big Bang Theory vs. Community/30 Rock), the ranking itself doesn't matter. A show only has to compete against other shows on it's own network for a slot on the schedule - or statistically speaking for scripted shows, perform at or better than the scripted show average of a network. There are numerous examples, but they all boil down to the idea that if shows are performing strongly on different networks at the same time, all will be renewed regardless of inter-network ranking.

Rankings against other shows DO matter.

It affects advertising rates, first of all.

Second, relative ranking is ALWAYS taken into account when weighed against a network's other options- a show in a distant 3rd place (or worse) in its slot will be considered for movement to a new time slot to see if it will are better there. Or it may be supplanted in that slot by a higher ranked show the network thinks will outperform it in that slot.

It may face cancellation if the network thinks a new show will be a better investment...say, by a show with lower production costs, a big name star who should be a draw for the target demographic, or even a network executive's pet project.

Look at Monk- a strong performer for USA, it struggled when ABC tried to add it to its own schedule and they gave up on it. And when NBC bought USA, they likewise tried airing the show on their network...where it floundered in fourth behind Big Brother and some Oprah show and that experiment ended as well.

This despite outperforming both ABC's and NBC's offerings in those respective time slots. In fact, Monk's numbers marked a significant 23% increase in that slot for NBC. But it was still so low relative to the other shows the it got axed.