Die-hard 'Arrested Development' fans already feeling sting of loss
- Tim Goodman
Monday, November 14, 2005
You couldn't call it unexpected.
This edition of the TV 101 Q & A got a late rush of letters all about the alleged cancellation of the best sitcom on television -- in fact, one of the best series period -- "Arrested Development" on Fox. (Alleged? Yes, more on that later.) Many of the letters were from die-hard fans -- their concerns cobbled together in the coming questions -- and most of them knew that "Arrested Development" was one of my favorite shows and that I have been a longtime ardent champion of the series. Therefore, kind readers that they are, they were concerned about me. (I know -- a rare emotion.) So, to answer one of the more common and personal queries is easy.
Q: How's your mental state in all of this?
A: Not good. There's anger -- no real surprise there, given that I fired off a Cranky Pants column Friday -- there's optimism, there's a sense of being mystified by the decision even when I knew it was coming, and there was also, just a wee small portion, of understanding and appreciation directed at Fox. No, really.
Because there were all kinds of similar emotions and multipart questions in each of the e-mails, I'll cherry-pick the most common and important as follows:
Q: Did Fox just really cancel "Arrested Development"? Say it ain't so!
A: Well, technically, it's not so. Fox will air the first 13 episodes, but it decided last week not to pick up the "back nine," as they say in the business. That's different from being canceled. (There was some confusion earlier as to whether Fox had ever promised a full 22 episodes to "AD." It hadn't. The network waited to see if the ratings were good before committing to the back nine. The ratings were not good, settling in at roughly 4 million viewers compared with about 6 million, on average, the last season. Either year you measure it, not good. Now, when a network cuts, or doesn't extend, your season order, that's usually a terrible sign. That's usually death. But remember, "AD" was cut from 22 to 18 last year and still returned.
Q: How could this happen? Doesn't Fox care about a show that has won Emmys?
A: It happened primarily because "Arrested Development" and freshman sitcom "Kitchen Confidential" -- also benched -- were dragging down the ratings for what amounts to the network's only bright spot, "Prison Break." Fox wanted to keep "Prison Break" surging ahead, and the lead-in hour with those two comedies was, essentially, costing it viewers.
Now, let's get serious here for a minute as it concerns Fox's alibi. The fact is, Fox has never known what to do with "Arrested Development," which has won six Emmys, including outstanding comedy. On-air promotions for the series have been sporadic at best and incompetent, never selling the humor of the series. The network made an argument that switching "AD" off Sunday nights and finding a "companion" series for it was a lifesaving plan. Well, we can see how that turned out: two deaths, as it appears "Kitchen Confidential" is doomed as well. You can argue all night whether "Kitchen," which was getting funnier, was a good fit or not. But there's no argument that slotting them both on Monday nights was a disaster. A terrible decision.
On top of that, Fox shouldn't kid itself about helping "Prison Break" or any of its other freshman series, all faring from bad to mediocre in the ratings. This was not a good development season for Fox, and none of these shows are likely to break out. Besides, at best, "Prison Break" is a one-season wonder. In a season of disappointment, why scuttle one of your best quality series? Fox is in no shape to be discarding Emmy winners. One look at its history of Emmy winners (slim) should prove that.
Q: Can anything be done to save the show?
A: Yeah, find some Nielsen friends and start watching when the show returns to finish its run Dec. 5.
Other than that, not much. But listen, there are people inside Fox who adamantly believe (perhaps foolishly) that a miracle could happen. And here's the scenario for that: No freshman series is a bona fide hit, and shows like "Stacked" are tanking. Come May, when Entertainment President Peter Ligouri assembles his executives and puts the pieces together for next season's schedule, he just may look down the bench at "Arrested Development" and decide to keep it as a gem that can be shifted to a better night (DVD sales and Emmy lustre helping to offset the dire ratings).
Ligouri, former head of FX, should look to his former head of programming there, Kevin Reilly, who is currently in charge at NBC. Reilly recently renewed "The Office," a low-rated, critically-acclaimed series that bleeds millions of viewers after "My Name Is Earl." Why renew it? Because Reilly knows "The Office" is a great show, despite not finding a massive audience. Ligouri, too, loves "Arrested Development" and should stick with his gut on this one. Why? Because Fox, outside of animated series, hasn't launched a good sitcom in ages.
Then again, Ligouri and Fox have apparently given approval for creator and executive producer Mitch Hurwitz to shop the series elsewhere. Which brings up the most frequently asked question:
Q: What are the chances someone else will pick up the series and save it?
A: Not good. "Arrested Development" would be a lovely addition to HBO, but the pay cable channel has said it will take no one's "sloppy seconds." Given the poor ratings and expensive per-episode price tag, no network or basic cable channel is likely to make a play for it.
However, there is an intriguing rumor of a suitor: Showtime. This idea actually makes sense. Showtime has been making great strides in its programming department, but the audience is still lacking. A name series that might prompt die-hard fans (are there any other kind left for "AD"?) to subscribe would be an enticing option. The idea is that "AD" might pair well with "Weeds." And no matter how you get it -- by developing it yourself or snatching it fully built off the discard pile -- a great series is a great series, period.
Whatever happens -- and though there's some lingering resentment on how the series was handled -- Fox should get some credit. The network believed in "Arrested Development" and stuck with it through lean times. Loyal fans have two nice DVD packages to choose from and will get, in the not too distant future, a 13-episode third season box.
If this is the end, it was a brilliant run of finely crafted hilarity. The writing was the best that television has seen and the acting, though ridiculously ignored by Emmy voters, was both inspired and passionately great. The cast clearly believed in the material and had a blast delivering it to the masses.
Well, a part of the masses, anyway.
And let's make this clear: Genius has no relationship whatsoever to popularity.
Give me 13 episodes of "Arrested Development" over five years of soul-sucking lameness like "According to Jim" any day.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/14/DDG4NFMUAI1.DTL&type=printable
