Wonderfalls - Cancelled

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Contrary to the tinfoil hat brigade, most cancelled TV shows get that way because nobody's watching them, not because TV executives really hate all five of the show's faithful viewers.

Actually, the absolute viewership numbers have very little to do with it. The most important factors in determining whether a show stays on are cost vs. advertising revenue, ownership of the show, and syndication possibilities.

The reality shows tend to score very well in the first two in that they cost very little to produce, and for the most part are owned entirely by the network (or a network-owned studio) rather than an independent studio. The networks would rather have a 7-million viewer show that they owned than a 10-million viewer show where they have to pay large sums to the production company.

Scripted dramas do poorly on all three counts. They are expensive to produce (large casts, writers, sets, location shoots), are generally produced by outside studios, and for the most part don't syndicate well.

I just read an interesting article that states that the percentage of scripted shows is actually up a little in the past few years (54% to 57%). What has gotten hurt even more by the reality craze is the old movie-of-the-week, specials, primetime sports, and other one-offs.

 

[takyris]

Gosh, DMScott, really? Shows whose ratings go down consistently eventually get cancelled? Please, explain more.

I said I was bummed. I didn't say that I was a weeping fanboy unaware of the ways in which television shows live or die, so drop the tinfoil hat garbage. It's abrasive and rude.

I would posit respectfully and less snarkily than the above lines might imply that there is a difference between establishing a season of consistent bad ratings, or, heck, 13 episodes of same, and making the same conclusion after getting four data points with which to work -- especially when you've moved the show so that it airs opposite the two most popular shows on television (informal, based on what I flipped through on an Entertainment link -- Apprentice and CSI) for its final week.

You are utterly right in that they are axing reality shows as well. I was implying a general trend, not a complete and utter destruction of scripted television in favor of reality shows. The question of critical acclaim might be worth bringing up -- I'm not sure how much it's worth in the network boardrooms these days, and I'm not sure how much it should be worth, but the critics were all in love with Wonderfalls, and it didn't get anything thrown its way. It got a lousy timeslot, then another lousy timeslot, and it was never in a protected space with a great lead-in. Its advertising was minimal. I'm not saying that a show that tanks in the ratings over and over again should stay just because I like it. Heck, with the way Fox handled things, yeah, Wonderfalls wasn't going anywhere, and probably wasn't going to, barring amazing word-of-mouth improvement. But your implication that our irritation is purely tinfoil-hatted ranting is disingenuous. The lads at Fox know how to protect the shows they like -- or, if they don't, they're idiots, and they need to learn from the big-boy networks. Wonderfalls was obviously not high on their list of things to protect. I personally disagree with that, but others are free to defend it as a valid choice. That's purely subjective (although, again, critical acclaim, etc.). What isn't subjective is the fact that it was not given the "let's make it succeed" treatment that other shows have gotten, in terms of time/day placement, lead-in power, protection from overwhelming oppositition on other network, marketing, or time to grow.

Unfortunately, Rodrigo, you're right, in that, while the FX element was minimal and the show looked relatively cheap to produce for a scripted show, it was nowhere near as inexpensive as a reality show -- and thus, had higher ratings standards to maintain. If a reality show brought in Wonderfalls' numbers, Fox wouldn't be crowing, and they might be eyeing cancellation, but I doubt they'd immediately yank it, since the cost to revenue ratio is better (with reality shows being cheaper to produce).

Also for the record: I don't love Tru Calling, and I don't feel a driving need to watch it unless someone tells me it's gotten closer to the kind of show I like next season, but that doesn't mean I'm unhappy that it's still on the air. Complaining that Fox axed one SF show and not another is silly. I'm glad that SF is on the air. I'm glad it's doing well enough to get picked up. I hope it leads them to try more SF shows next season, and I'm sure that its success was part of the reason they decided to go ahead with Wonderfalls in the first place.

 

[Silver Moon]

....save the producers and actors the heartache of having a paying job for 15 minutes

Yeah, there was a local actor from my home town that kept going out to California every year or so to get into the industry. Every time he'd fail, run out of money, and come back home to his local radio announcing gig. His big break came in 1983 when he was cast on the show "Goodnight Beantown" starring Bill Bixby and Mariette Hartley. Unfortunately his part didn't begin until the 7th episode, and the show was canceled after the 6th aired, so the dozen or so that they filmed with him never aired. It was another decade until his next real gig, with Fox picked him up to host a short-lived morning talk show, which then got canceled after a few months, and he was back on the local radio yet again. The story has a happy ending thought, as in 1998 Whoppi Goldberg hired him to host Hollywood Squares and in 2001 he added "America's Favorite Home Videos", so Tom Bergeron is finally a success.

 

[jdavis]

Me and a friend watched the first episode of Wonderfalls, and hated it. We spent the next hour talking about how goofy it was. Just my opinion there, it just wasn't the type of show I would watch.

As far as cancelling it goes, giving it only 4 episodes was just pathetic. I don't care what the ratings were showing you got to give a show a actual chance. Fox shows come and go so fast that a lot of times by the time word of mouth gets around that I should try it out it's already gone. Firefly is a good example, I heard it was pretty good and decided to give it a chance, unfortuantly it was already gone by the time I found out it even existed. Family Guy is another one of Fox's goofs, they cancelled it twice now and have now picked it up again. It took it being on a stable timeslot on Cartoon Network and huge DVD sales to convince them it wasn't the shows fault the ratings were poor it was their fault for moving it around and not advertising it enough.

You can make the ratings tank for a show if you want them to just like you can pick better timeslots and push a show harder and ensure it will get better ratings, there is more to it than "nobody was watching it". Advertising, lead in show, competition on other networks and word of mouth buzz all have a lot to do with how a show does. If you judge just on ratings alone Family Guy shouldn't be getting a third chance on Fox now, it didn't do good ratings for them (funny it did amazing ratings for Cartoon Network though). There are lots of variables that go in to how a show does.

 

[aliensex]

Does Fox really have soooo many shows, that they can just axe things like this so quickly? I mean, they have 2 freakin hours of King of the Hill on Sundays now!

Could this show not have taken up one of those hours, leading up to the Simpsons at 8? I never got a chance to see this show, and now I've missed out. Had they put it on Sunday at 7:00pm, I would have seen it. Oh well.

 

[Henry]

There's the thing; it's also why I watch maybe 5 hours of TV a week, and 2 of those hours are documentaries on Discovery or History Channel. Hours of countless reruns may be cheap programming, but I find myself amazed that it could be actually nabbing viewers.

I recently picked up Tru Calling out of desperation; given that even adding Jason Priestly has not made it entertaining to me, I'm likely to drop it if this Thursday is just as repetitive and stale. About the most interesting thing in the whole of last ep of Tru Calling was Davis admitting he had some serious feelings for Tru, and that isn't exactly whopping character development.

The happiest I am is about the USA show Monk; it's a great show, the entire CAST has great chemistry together, and they've solved their problem of possible cancellation by having shorter, low-cost seasons and spacing them out. I'm ticked when I don't get a new episode about once a quarter, but I'm still getting them, and that's the best part. Well, Tony Shaloub winning an Emmy didn't hurt the staying power, either. Who's going to cancel an Emmy-winning show?

But I've also got to hand USA credit for sticking with Monk - heck, before "Peacemakers" was cancelled, they stuck with it for at least a dozen or more episodes before calling it quits. That was a fun little show, and I'm sorry to see it go, but good Lord at least they aired the damned thing! (EDIT - turns out just 9 episodes. Oh well, at least it ran that long...)

Wonderfalls' cancellation is one more example of trigger-happiness, and not understanding the dynamics of good dramas. Star Trek was almost cancelled after two seasons, before becoming a world-wide sensation purely by word-of-mouth. It has the potential to catch on, but switching it from the frying-pan to the fire only ensured that ratings would drop further.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I've never seen Amelie so I have no comparison there but Wonderfalls was certainly not girly. It just has a female lead who happens to be cute. And snarky. Don't forget the snarky.

I'll be picking it up when it hits DVD. *sigh*

It didn't look girly to me. I never watched it because I only just heard about it the other day. But speaking as a female, i can say, girly show irk me too, but just because a show has female leads doesn't make it Girly. Gilmore Girls is a perfect example. Gilmore Girls is HILARIOUS and well written (and quite snarky) and I have heard a lot of men say they won't watch it because it's girly.

I could repeat my Century City - Cancelled thread post about why reality shows are horrid, but I'll spare you...

 

[John Crichton]

It didn't look girly to me. I never watched it because I only just heard about it the other day. But speaking as a female, i can say, girly show irk me too, but just because a show has female leads doesn't make it Girly. Gilmore Girls is a perfect example. Gilmore Girls is HILARIOUS and well written (and quite snarky) and I have heard a lot of men say they won't watch it because it's girly.

Ya know? I've always heard good things about Gilmore Girls. I'm glad it's still on the air and I look forward to watching it from the beginning on DVD.

I think some folks can't get past a solid female lead. Many people had the same problem with Buffy. Alias is maybe the only genre show I can think of where I haven't heard the 'girly' card being throw around.

And this leads me to another point about the cancellation of Wonderfalls: 4 episodes?! jdavis already pretty much summed up what my feelings are about that and others, including myself, have also talked about Fox's general mismanagement of their programming. Alias is a show that doesn't get great ratings. From what I understand, it gets enough to slide by. It has benefitted from:

a) a consistant timeslot
b) a viewer friendly timeslot (right in from of The Practice, and established drama)
c) ABC's willingness to advertise and stick with it

Sure, ABC is the network that cancelled Sports Night but everyone makes mistakes. Compared to Fox, they are saints. From what I understand from here - "Alias has been a critical favorite since its premiere and has a devoted fan following. However, its ratings have never been more than mediocre, earning it the dubious honor of being a "cachet show" -- one that might not perform well overall, but a good project for a network to be associated with as well as the lone program viewers who don't normally visit the alpahbet network will make a point of watching." Fox could do the same. I still say they should have given it a better timeslot. Oh well...

 

[takyris]

Yeah, I find myself in the odd position of watching very little network TV, considering that I define myself as a TV-watching-person. The only thing that gets Tivo'd from NBC is "Ellen", which my wife likes and which has grown steadily on me as a cute show. The only CBS show is "CSI". The only ABC show is "Alias". And the only Fox show was Wonderfalls (since I wasn't into Tru Calling after the first few episodes).

 

[Pielorinho]

I only have basic cable, so at this point there won't be any shows I go out of my way to watch. I mean, my wife and I will probably see The Apprentice through to its conclusion, and I may be in the process of being sucked into NYPD Blue, having caught it two or three weeks in a row, but I won't be sad if I miss an episode of either of these.

I do wonder whether Tim Minear and Joss Whedon will refuse to shop a show to Fox ever again -- or are they in a first-refusal contract with that network? Fox seems especially bad about putting shows in bad timeslots, underpromoting them, and then cancelling them prematurely; I suspect that they have a dysfunctional corporate culture, in which the ambitions of individual midlevel managers trump the network's overall best interest.

Daniel