ABC and Showtime interested in picking up Arrested Development

[SackUp]

this would be damn awesome...any hope is good for me!

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
this is great news.

[/ QUOTE ]
"I'd cry but I need to save the moisture"

[Aloysius]

Dids - Hahaha that's pretty amusing. As a sidenote, although I love David Cross, my friend who was a writer for Oliver Beene (a show he voiced the narrator character for) noted Cross is a super curmudgeon who hates the "industry", so you know, he could be biased somewhat.

In terms of raw numbers - I believe Fox spent a good amount of $ on paid media, and I recall seeing a good amount of on-air promos. So while the marketing message may have not hit the right chord with America to make AD a hit... could any marketing have done that?

This is an incredibily difficult show to market... and really it's questionable it could ever be a "hit" by network broadcast standards, even with optimal marketing. (This is America's fault for having bad taste IMO.) We're having the same problems with Sons & Daughters (a mid-season very much with the feel of AD, btw I like this show and would recommend it to AD fans).

Hoping AD Gets Picked Up By Showtime,
-Al

[B Dids]

Based on Cross's standup, I'm shocked that he was still doing TV. Slow Donny was always his best role.

Fox moved it around a lot didn't they? That's the biggest complaint I've heard. I don't recall seeing as many promos for it as say "The Simpsons" which I can't imagine needs those $ nearly as much. However, it sounds like you work in the industry, so it's likely you know more than me.

[Aloysius]

Dids - you're spot on.

But I'm not saying Fox couldn't have done more to make AD viable (not moving around timeslot, more marketing, better marketing), I just think Fox probably did enough to give it a "chance to succeed." Meaning AD probably had enough exposure to build an audience. (Unfortunately, Fox does have other series to market... too bad they couldn't take the combined marketing spend for their crappy shows and put it against AD instead...).

I mean, this show won an Emmy, got lots of buzz for it, got decent marketing support, and the audience still didn't come... once a series cuts through the "clutter" and is a known quantity, and still remains unprofitable, there's really not alot of options.

Remember, it's not like AD is limping along with mediocore ratings. It's doing really really badly.

-Al

[Aloysius]

Madtown - If Fox Studios is deficiting at $400k, at a $1.6M production cost, then Fox Network is paying $1.2M / ep license fee to the studio. That's really expensive for say, an ABC, to pay for this series (relative to the current comedy market). Especially for a ratings loser. (ABC would not own any of the syndication or DVD rights, and would only be making network ad $, determined solely by ratings).

This means that, as you pointed out, Fox Studios may cut the production budget with a lower license fee to maintain a $400k deficit.

I think this would totally suck for a series that is strong in part due to high production / cast value. I would hope Fox Studios take the stance that either 1) they would be willing to deficit more to keep the show going, or 2) not continue at subpar production levels.

I sincerely hope it goes to Showtime. They would be willing to pay a higher license fee than a network and help maintain the shows quality. I would prefer the series to end then see a lame, watered down version of it.

-Al

Edit - sorry to bump but we're actually looking at this at work right now... so obviously it's on my mind...

[Jack of Arcades]

What was the last good Fox show that did well in the ratings? Malcom in the Middle? That 70's show?

[istewart]

Neither of those shows were good, wtf.

[B Dids]

Whoa.

istewart was wrong.

Up is down and left is right.

[Aloysius]

JackofArcades - Here's Fox sitcoms in the Top 40 for the past 3 seasons (these are Nielsen In-Season A18-49 Final Rankings for primetime season) -

2002/03:
Simpsons - 17
Wanda at Large - 19 (only 6 eps. aired)
That 70s Show - 24
Malcolm - 33
Bernie Mac - 34
(No AD)

2003/04:
Simpsons - 26
That 70s Show - 29
(Bernie Mac was 57, Malcolm was 52, AD was 91)

2004/05:
Stacked - 28 (only like 5 eps. aired)
Simpsons - 30
(70s Show was 54, AD was 78, Malcolm 89, Bernie Mac 99)

This season, AD is on pace to do much worse than 2004/05. WTF. Stacked?

-Al