5 ms·

I want to believe you're on to something here, but how do you "tease" a show like "Mad Men" at low cost? The best tease for that show would be something like th

I want to believe you're on to something here, but how do you "tease" a show like "Mad Men" at low cost? The best tease for that show would be something like the incredible "Carousel" pitch from the end of Season 1[1], and indeed, a link to that from reddit was how I finally decided to check the show out a couple of years in. But that arose organically, after a ton of money had been spent on script, casting, production... [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus

jonnathanson 13y ago
I'm not saying I have a fantastic answer, and I want to admit that. (I'd be a lot more successful right now if I did!) I made some edits to my reply, and I think the answer I can best come up with is this: spend less money on development, and reallocate more of that money to production (either of more series in general, or on fewer and better series, or on licensing of exclusives from shows on other channels). Money in production seems to have better ROI, while money in development is a spin of the wheel. Another thought: a lot of great shows get canned from the networks simply because advertisers don't grok them, or networks bungle the marketing and scheduling of them. Perhaps Netflix can get into the business of picking up these wasted opportunities? That seems to have been the operating logic behind its investment in Arrested Development, and I don't see why that model wouldn't work for other shows like it. Small anecdote from personal experience: when I worked in development at NBC, we invested a ton of money into a high-profile Aaron Sorkin dramedy about life at a TV network. It was a fantastic script, by a confirmed creative genius with a track record ten miles long. As bets went, it was about as much of a sure thing as anybody had seen. That same year we spent a much smaller sum on a quirky workplace comedy about life at a network. Of the two shows: Studio 60 lasted all of a season. 30 Rock ran for seven. As great a show as 30 Rock became, it wasn't all that great from the get go. A lot of the magic happened in production, with the hiring of a fantastic writing staff and the time to let the whole thing gel and find audience fit. I'm not sure what the operative lesson is from that experience. But it did teach me quite a bit about how you can't tell quality when you supposedly see it. Especially early on. :)
- thenomad 13y ago
  The latter seems like a solid idea, if the networks could be persuaded to part with their IP. I suspect I'm not the expert on this that you are, but the latter could be a problem, particularly from a "career preservation" point of view at the networks. If Exec Bob's show is picked up by Netflix and turned around from a flop to a hit, that tends to imply some things about Exec Bob's management of said show that he might not want to risk being implied.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    It's an interesting thought! But in my experience, at least, once a network cancels a show, they're usually happy to let it go. Especially if it's been dead for a few years or more. And Exec Bob is likely to have switched jobs or moved up by then, anyhow. There's a ridiculous degree of fluidity in the "musical chairs" that is the creative executive career track. Also: once a show has moved from development to air, the show changes stewardship from the Development department to the Current Programming department -- so there's a different executive in Bob's place now, who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the show. Bob can absolve himself of responsibility if the show makes it to the air and then gets canceled. Bob is responsible if not enough shows make it to the air in the first place, or if not enough of his shows seem to last beyond a season, or find audiences. In general, though, Bob is judged on his hits (or lack thereof) more than his misses. He's incentivized to take a lot of swings at bat in order to land a home run. Home runs can often be career-making, even if they were sometimes just luck of the dice.
- ghaff 13y ago
  I didn't hate Studio 60 as much as others but, yeah, it should have been better. >As great a show as 30 Rock became, it wasn't all that great from the get go. A lot of the magic happened in production, with the hiring of a fantastic writing staff and the time to let the whole thing gel and find audience fit. I'm generally not very receptive to arguments along the lines of "OK, this show isn't great now but you owe it to the universe to give it six months" but I also don't really disagree. I confess to also liking 30 Rock but never quite putting it in the must see bucket. (In all fairness, I've really sort of gotten away from sitcoms period.) Certainly, I imagine we'd all like to see good shows get the opportunity to work out kinks rather than putting all the burden on one pilot. I'm curious. Are there good examples of a really "knock them dead" pilot that didn't translate into a halfway decent show. Smith might be one possible candidate although I liked the show as a whole more than people in general apparently did. [EDIT] Related question. For a relatively big budget show, how expensive is making a pilot relative to non-pilot development costs?
Finster 13y ago
Your argument applies even more to something like Breaking Bad or even the venerable Babylon 5. The strength of those offerings was the build-up over many seasons. Ugh, and please let's not judge Star Trek TNG on its first season. Yikes!
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  "let's not judge Star Trek TNG on its first season. Yikes!" "The Naked Now" still makes for excellent comedy viewing every now and then. Let's be honest. It's sort of like The Room of TNG episodes.
- ghaff 13y ago
  I'd argue that Babylon 5 retained many of its flaws throughout its run even if, for me, the good aspects outweighed the bad. That said, the first part of its run was pretty weak as was TNG's. I doubt I'd have made it through as a non-genre casual viewer.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    I'm going to sacrifice a lot of nerd points by saying this, but the pilot of Babylon 5 was so dreadfully unwatchable for me that I never got past it. I never tried another episode. Everyone I know tells me how much I'd love the show, but for the life of me, I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another episode. Perhaps this is a great example of a bad pilot that grew into a decent series?
    - danmaz74 13y ago
      I watched the whole series for the first time only a couple of years ago. I started it just because, as an old Amiga enthusiast, I remembered about that show from some article I had read years before on a magazine about 3D graphics. The first two seasons were just OK, but after that something clicked, and the show became really engaging. With some loose ends, but it made me pleasantly waste much more time than I should have on it :)

jonnathanson 13y ago

I'm not saying I have a fantastic answer, and I want to admit that. (I'd be a lot more successful right now if I did!) I made some edits to my reply, and I think the answer I can best come up with is this: spend less money on development, and reallocate more of that money to production (either of more series in general, or on fewer and better series, or on licensing of exclusives from shows on other channels). Money in production seems to have better ROI, while money in development is a spin of the wheel. Another thought: a lot of great shows get canned from the networks simply because advertisers don't grok them, or networks bungle the marketing and scheduling of them. Perhaps Netflix can get into the business of picking up these wasted opportunities? That seems to have been the operating logic behind its investment in Arrested Development, and I don't see why that model wouldn't work for other shows like it. Small anecdote from personal experience: when I worked in development at NBC, we invested a ton of money into a high-profile Aaron Sorkin dramedy about life at a TV network. It was a fantastic script, by a confirmed creative genius with a track record ten miles long. As bets went, it was about as much of a sure thing as anybody had seen. That same year we spent a much smaller sum on a quirky workplace comedy about life at a network. Of the two shows: Studio 60 lasted all of a season. 30 Rock ran for seven. As great a show as 30 Rock became, it wasn't all that great from the get go. A lot of the magic happened in production, with the hiring of a fantastic writing staff and the time to let the whole thing gel and find audience fit. I'm not sure what the operative lesson is from that experience. But it did teach me quite a bit about how you can't tell quality when you supposedly see it. Especially early on. :)

thenomad 13y ago
The latter seems like a solid idea, if the networks could be persuaded to part with their IP. I suspect I'm not the expert on this that you are, but the latter could be a problem, particularly from a "career preservation" point of view at the networks. If Exec Bob's show is picked up by Netflix and turned around from a flop to a hit, that tends to imply some things about Exec Bob's management of said show that he might not want to risk being implied.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  It's an interesting thought! But in my experience, at least, once a network cancels a show, they're usually happy to let it go. Especially if it's been dead for a few years or more. And Exec Bob is likely to have switched jobs or moved up by then, anyhow. There's a ridiculous degree of fluidity in the "musical chairs" that is the creative executive career track. Also: once a show has moved from development to air, the show changes stewardship from the Development department to the Current Programming department -- so there's a different executive in Bob's place now, who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the show. Bob can absolve himself of responsibility if the show makes it to the air and then gets canceled. Bob is responsible if not enough shows make it to the air in the first place, or if not enough of his shows seem to last beyond a season, or find audiences. In general, though, Bob is judged on his hits (or lack thereof) more than his misses. He's incentivized to take a lot of swings at bat in order to land a home run. Home runs can often be career-making, even if they were sometimes just luck of the dice.
ghaff 13y ago
I didn't hate Studio 60 as much as others but, yeah, it should have been better. >As great a show as 30 Rock became, it wasn't all that great from the get go. A lot of the magic happened in production, with the hiring of a fantastic writing staff and the time to let the whole thing gel and find audience fit. I'm generally not very receptive to arguments along the lines of "OK, this show isn't great now but you owe it to the universe to give it six months" but I also don't really disagree. I confess to also liking 30 Rock but never quite putting it in the must see bucket. (In all fairness, I've really sort of gotten away from sitcoms period.) Certainly, I imagine we'd all like to see good shows get the opportunity to work out kinks rather than putting all the burden on one pilot. I'm curious. Are there good examples of a really "knock them dead" pilot that didn't translate into a halfway decent show. Smith might be one possible candidate although I liked the show as a whole more than people in general apparently did. [EDIT] Related question. For a relatively big budget show, how expensive is making a pilot relative to non-pilot development costs?

Finster 13y ago

Your argument applies even more to something like Breaking Bad or even the venerable Babylon 5. The strength of those offerings was the build-up over many seasons. Ugh, and please let's not judge Star Trek TNG on its first season. Yikes!

jonnathanson 13y ago
"let's not judge Star Trek TNG on its first season. Yikes!" "The Naked Now" still makes for excellent comedy viewing every now and then. Let's be honest. It's sort of like The Room of TNG episodes.
ghaff 13y ago
I'd argue that Babylon 5 retained many of its flaws throughout its run even if, for me, the good aspects outweighed the bad. That said, the first part of its run was pretty weak as was TNG's. I doubt I'd have made it through as a non-genre casual viewer.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  I'm going to sacrifice a lot of nerd points by saying this, but the pilot of Babylon 5 was so dreadfully unwatchable for me that I never got past it. I never tried another episode. Everyone I know tells me how much I'd love the show, but for the life of me, I'd rather watch paint dry than sit through another episode. Perhaps this is a great example of a bad pilot that grew into a decent series?
  - danmaz74 13y ago
    I watched the whole series for the first time only a couple of years ago. I started it just because, as an old Amiga enthusiast, I remembered about that show from some article I had read years before on a magazine about 3D graphics. The first two seasons were just OK, but after that something clicked, and the show became really engaging. With some loose ends, but it made me pleasantly waste much more time than I should have on it :)