On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jason Carpio <[email protected]> wrote:
> I tried to evangelize the awesomeness of this show when it was on the air. > > i wonder if this show would of lasted longer on a cable network. > > The discs are available for Kings on the Netflix, but not instant viewing - the Bastards! (sorry, I now get irrationally outraged when I can't watch something instantly on the Netflix). I also really liked Kings, but I have not been able to generate the usual outrage at NBC for canceling it, I guess because it seems like we should just be grateful they even gave it a try in the first place. Given what we know about NBC, the state of broadcast television, and the quality of the show, it seems really unlikely that this show ever saw the light of day. Kings averaged about 4.6M viewers in the four weeks it aired on Sundays, which was a little more than the Jay Leno Show would average the next year. But Kings no doubt was a lot more expensive to produce than the JLS, and its ratings went down every week. When NBC brought it back on Saturday nights, the ratings averaged 1.7M. I was interested in how that compares with cable ratings. The King Kong of cable drams is The Closer, which got 7.4M viewers last week. But TNT and USA have near broadcast network expectations for their mainstream dramas. Mad Men on AMC, averaged 1.8M viewers for season 3. Damages, on FX, got 1.7M for its season 2 premier, 1.5M for its season 3 premier, and .975 for its season 3 finale ( I would rank Kings somewhere between Damages and Mad Men in quality). Damages got canceled after season 3, though I guess it got picked up in one of those DirecTV reclamation projects (which would have been great for Kings actually). It looks then like somewhere between 1.5M and 2M viewers is considered acceptable for the smaller, quality basic cable dramas, which is right were Kings was on Saturday nights on NBC. If NBC on Saturday night is the equivalent of AMÇ on Sunday night, or FX on Tuesday night, then there is an argument to be made that Kings could have been popular enough to get renewed had it been on a smaller cable outlet (but not TNT or USA). But I guess they would have had to pay everybody a lot less. I think FX would have been perfect for Kings, it had kind of a The Shield vibe anyway. Oddly, I don't think it would have been as good on HBO or Showtime - the limitations on language and nudity worked for Kings, and the FX rules, somewhat loser than broadcast, would have been just about right. We might actually be getting closer to what cable tv originally promised us, something like niche programming. it would not be so bad to have mainstream shows like CSI and American Idol on broadcast networks, and narrower stream (including higher "quality") shows like Mad Men on smaller basic cable. I am not sure where shows like The Closer and Burn Notice would be in that scheme (they probably both would do well on a network at 9:00 pm). For this to work, the networks should be able to move higher quality shows that dont get good enough ratings to a partnered basic cable outlet to see if the show can find an audience there. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
