Stuck in the middle — The failure of the complex, restrained television series

Let’s play pretend for a moment (since I planned on writing this column had this thing we’re pretending about actually happened), if you don’t mind. Let us assume for the sake of argument that AMC’s fantastic new drama series The Killing didn’t open to nearly 3 million viewers, which is a sizable success for the still-growing AMC. Taking that pretend, alternate version of yesterday morning further, let us assume that not only did The Killing not debut to 3 million viewers, but it didn’t even scratch 2 million viewers and ultimately fell somewhere closer to Rubicon‘s barely-1 million figure. If this would have happened, The Killing would have been the fourth new, mostly low-key drama series to debut this season and struggle in the ratings. The Killing would have joined its aforementioned AMC cousin Rubicon and a pair of FX series in Terriers and Lights Out (which airs its series finale tonight). Those three series are already cancelled and it’s very possible that if the The Killing started with Rubicon-like ratings, it would have been right there alongside those three. That would have been four well-reviewed, well-respected new series that couldn’t survive more than a season on basic cable, a space where the ratings do not have to be otherworldly.

Of course, The Killing didn’t flame out in the ratings and it most likely won’t join Rubicon, Lights Out and Terriers on the scrap heap by the time its first season ends. But even so, I’ve been thinking a lot about why those three series didn’t make it. Although there are certainly various, distinct factors that led to their cancellations — bad marketing, poor arc construction, whatever — but as they like to say, three times is a trend. There is something going on with audiences and complex, but not necessarily “showy” dramas on cable and probably all of television really.

Even with The Killing‘s initial success, this is still a troubling trend, especially compared with the series that have made it over the last year or two. Cable is a place for cutting-edge television production, whether that means in content, in approach, in execution or whatever. We can all certainly agree that basic and pay cable have become more appealing destinations for innovative programming, both for audiences and the talent themselves. We want big, showy kind of content on HBO because HBO has the financial backing to pull something like Game of Thrones off, whereas NBC or CBS do not. This is most certainly beneficial for audiences. A quick look over the landscape of cable television (both pay and basic) over the past year or two suggests it’s been a really good time for fans of unique-ish kinds of television. We all know about the massive success AMC had with The Walking Dead. Starz has done well for itself with both Spartacus series and apparently people tuned in last week for the debut of Camelot. The Borgias opened big for Showtime. HBO’s made something of a resurgence with True Blood and Boardwalk Empire and will be extending that comeback with Game of Thrones when it debuts in a few weeks. From my perspective, these are all series that have a more obvious “hook,” whether that’s the period setting or a trendy genre creation, and I’ve been wondering if that’s all it takes in today’s landscape.

Clearly more notable hooks and interesting, riskier premises are what make basic and pay cable appealing in comparison to the procedural-heavy landscape of broadcast television and I’m not saying those kind of programs shouldn’t be developed, produced and aired on today’s television networks, but it kind of feels like something is changing in network thinking as far as series development goes. These days, new series tend to be especially “different” and unique or especially “familiar” and some might say, rote. Again, there’s nothing overly wrong with this kind of thinking or production development, especially in specific cases — I’m not going to complain about Boardwalk Empire being made — but my concern lies with those series that take up some of the space in the so-called middle.

The middle is a place for series like Terriers, Rubicon and Lights Out. These are series that are most definitely “complex” and probably empirically part of the “quality television” canon, but they are not especially showy or flashy in the same way that something like True Blood or The Walking Dead happens to be. With varying degrees of conceptual complexity, these are series about normal people doing mostly “normal” things that are clearly recognizable, understandable and consumable. But at the same time, they aren’t as understandable or as consumable as the broadcast procedurals or even USA’s brand of sunshine-drenched, escapist fare. These middle-ground series have just enough complex moving parts to make them unique, but not enough to make them overly unique or hook-y such as the series I mentioned a few paragraphs ago. They are truly stuck in the middle and it appears that audiences do not want the middle. When FX president John Landgraf talked to Alan Sepinwall shortly after cancelling Terriers, he touched on the difficulties of reaching audiences with content lodged in the middle-ground:

“I don’t know if subtlety is something the American public is buying in droves,” he added. “When I look at ‘Jersey Shore’ and the Kardashians and ‘Sons of Anarchy’ and ‘Walking Dead’… I wouldn’t say that subtlety and nuance describes the most successful kind of pop content in America today.

Landgraf basically had to make the same sort of statement after deciding to cut Lights Out loose as well. This is something that is not only noticeable to a television dweeb like me, but also to the producers, writers and all the way up to the network heads and presidents. I don’t know if I can call it a problem per se, but there is definitely something going on here. Audiences sort of expect the procedural, close-ended kind of series that broadcast gives them and at this point, perhaps they’re expecting cable channels and networks to give them the polar opposite to those kind of things. I’m not sure audience response is somehow based the event-style production and marketing that the film industry works with now, but it feels sort of similar. Just like the smaller, even B or C-level grade films are being pushed out of theaters in place of more screens for the summer blockbusters and easily consumable family or romantic comedies, the less flashy television series are being pushed off networks — and mostly by the audiences. If the numbers were even remotely good for Rubicon, Lights Out and Terriers, those series would be around.

Moreover, this problem is doing its best to spread to broadcast television as well. While I’ve talked a lot about the simple, easily-digested likes of NCIS or CSI: or Criminal Minds, there are series that fit this middle-ground definition that are having trouble garnering enough ratings to stay on the air. Parenthood, The Good Wife, The Chicago Code and Blue Bloods all work within this framework I’ve created and every single one of those series is in some form of trouble or another as far as returning in the fall goes. I wouldn’t be shocked if all four returned for the new season, but I wouldn’t be especially shocked if most or all of them were cancelled as well.

Of course, this isn’t necessarily a new phenomenon, but one that just happens to be more prevalent right now because of the three cancellations. And of course, there are sizable exceptions to the makeshift theory I’m putting forth here. Justified, which I think fits the complex, but not showy model is doing very well for FX. Shameless on Showtime and Treme on HBO are doing well enough to survive. Mad Men and Breaking Bad are both borderline cases as far as definitions go, but they’re doing very well for AMC and an argument could be made that Sons of Anarchy also falls somewhere in the middle for FX. But in general, something is astray with these middle-ground series and it’s wholly unfortunate. So enjoy Lights Out tonight because it might be one of the last of its kind on television for a few seasons.

Comments
9 Responses to “Stuck in the middle — The failure of the complex, restrained television series”
  1. Todd VDW says:

    It’s worth pointing out that Rubicon DID debut pretty big. It very quickly fell off from that. So there’s time for The Killing to fit your general thesis.

    That said, I’d argue The Killing DOES have a hook. A murder mystery that plays out over the course of a season is something that has worked in TV before and will work again. It’s not “zombies,” but it’s a stronger hook than any of the other shows had.

    • Agent_Broyles says:

      Hey, look–It’s Todd. Hi, Todd.

      Has anyone considered that the problem is with trying to please a general viewing public that is inherently bad and hates our nice things? Just sayin’ properly applied fascism could go a long way towards preserving non-crappy television.

    • dead souls says:

      Rubicon really didn’t debut big in any meaningful way. Sure it had a decent sized audience, but it skewed so old that it was obvious from the initial ratings it was a dead show walking. There’s not much profit for AMC in a show pulling a 0.3 demo.

      The Killing premiere got a 0.7 demo which, while unspectacular, is right around what Breaking Bad and Mad Men get. I’m sure it’ll see some audience drop-off in the coming weeks, but hopefully not to the point that it’s in any danger.

  2. Sasha says:

    Very interesting and insightful article..Personally, I was a BIG fan of Lights Out and watched the finale tonght, and now I’m even more angry at the way the cancellation announcement was handled by FX,,The Upfronts Party excuse didn’t “grab” me.. But to get back to your article, you have really touched on what I have been feeling for probably the past 6-8 months and I think what viewers are attracted to, for the most part, is lunacy.
    Your words are far more eloquent than I could ever hope to write, but I will say this,when people wake up (and it may take some years) and/or they take those Nielsen families and their “boxes” and heave em over the side of a ship, is it possible that those who have brought us to this point in televevision realize what they have ruined for the rest of us? am not going to hold my breath wondering just how long it WILL take before we ever see the likes of the three shows you mentioned.
    For now I’m done with the “small screen” ….

  3. wwas says:

    I don’t know if it is worth pointing out, but AMC nor FX provide a lead-in or similar programming block. FX has re-runs of Two and a Half Men or a movie like tonight’s Max Payne.

  4. Patrick says:

    I think it’s also worth noting that these more subtle and restrained shows (along with pretty much everything on TV) aren’t being given much time at all to reliably connect with an audience. They’re not being given the luxury of a first season to iron out thematic inconsistencies or to execute other course corrections. Rubicon had a big tonal shift midstream, and Lights Out also took a little time to figure out what it wanted to be. Terriers IMO didn’t really have that issue, but that seems like an outlier. And consider a show like Caprica, which I think wanted to work in this “middle ground” but instead ended up displaying how difficult that can be for sci-fi (insert obligatory SyFy rectal-cranial inversion joke here). Taking 3 or 4 episodes to straighten a show out can get it canned in today’s TV environment. Anyway, I hope The Killing can keep its audience once people realize it isn’t Criminal Minds.

  5. jrc says:

    You’ve got a point here but, given how young “premium” television is, I think that that this problem will resolve itself in the coming years. The fact that there isn’t much space out there for so-called middle ground shows is related to the the fact that there’s relatively little space for “hooky” shows. The trend toward better television really started with the Sopranos and, while it’s grown exponentially since then, the Mad Mens and Dexters of the world are still just a drop in the bucket when compared to network television. These shows are still in the process of carving a new niche and it makes sense that they be as different as possible from network fare as, for the most part, the early adopters are people looking to get as far from broad-based programming as possible. As with any artistic medium, the trail-blazer will open up room for more accessible works and we’ll eventually see more quality shows without a genre-base or outlandish budget. Terriers may simply have been ahead of its time.

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] to Lights Out and Rubicon. There’s obviously a reason audiences have clung to these series, which I detailed here, but I’m fairly satisfied with what I saw. Authors are able to write just one book in a world […]

  2. […] is probably why no one watched it then, right? Complicated, complex series have trouble garnering an audience today, even with viewers who have lived in the best era of television ever. The content isn’t similar […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: