WILL & GRACE's season premier drew only 3 million people. And that's with David Schwimmer as a guest and lots of promotion. W&G is toast.
MURPHY BROWN opened with a whimper and went down 9% from that. Every other comedy that night on CBS kept their audience. Not good. Based on readers' comments you guys weren't that impressed either.
MAGNUM P.I. seems to be exciting no one.
And then there's LAST MAN STANDING. It kicked ass its first week on Fox. It got better numbers than it did on ABC. But don't pop the champagne just yet. In week two it lost 27% of its audience. And the trend among reboots is that they go steadily down. They never build. Now LAST MAN STANDING, in fairness, even with the loss still is doing better on Fox than sitcoms have done in years. But let's see how this ultimately plays out. Fox spent a lot of money for live wrestling to program on Friday nights. That starts sometime next year. I'm sure Fox execs are shaking their heads saying, "NOW we get a hit on Friday night?" One other thing about LAST MAN STANDING -- it's kind of stretching it calling it a reboot. It was off the air one season.
THE CONNORS has yet to debut. The expected numbers are half of what ROSEANNE got (which is still pretty decent). But two things to consider: 1) The curiosity regarding Roseanne's departure should inflate the premier numbers, and 2) Even with Roseanne the ratings were going steadily down.
Look, in a world where we can see all episodes of the original series anytime we want, reboots are not only competing with everything else on TV but themselves as well. Plus the actors were younger and the writing was at its best in the originals. 60 year-old actors still acting like they did when they were 30 is creaky and creepy. And writing styles have changed so the reboots sometime feel dated even though they're trying to sound contemporary.
So how long will this reboot trend last? Let's see how long these shows last and how many more are put into development. If I was a betting man I'd say the chances of that BIG WAVE DAVE'S reboot are now pretty slim.
63 comments :
There really are only a handful of "reboots" that have been successful: BATTLESTAR GALATICA, HAWAII 5-0 and the current DOCTOR WHO.
BATTLESTAR and 5-0 really only worked because a) entirely new cast and b) took those series in entirely different directions rather than retread the old formats.
DOCTOR WHO worked because a) it's an institution in Britain and b) the series even from its early years ever has been one constant reboot after another anyway since the format has been to bring new actors to play The Doctor and new companions all the time.
In the case of these reboots the producers sought to bring the series in new directions and with new energy.
All these other reboots that are failing seem to be just trying to recapture lightning twice by going through the same motions again. There's very little creative vitality in that, and it shows.
And yes, LAST MAN STANDING is not reboot. It just switched networks, and series have done that, to greater or lesser degrees of success, for decades.
Let's not forget that even Jackie Gleason wasn't able to recreate THE HONEYMOONERS, though he tried twice with color episodes in the 60s and specials in the 70s.
Scott Baio is probably praying for a Charles In Charge reboot. He needs another job other than just being a full time Trump supporter.
Ken, consider this an FQ if you want or answer here or another post, but I would be very interested your thoughts on why--given the poor performance of so many reboots--why producers and networks remain so fixated on them as a trend?
"Mom" had a 1.3/6 rating/share with 18-49 last Thursday, compared to the ratings for two 9 p.m. premieres -- ABC's "Station 19" (1.1/5) and NBC's "Will & Grace" (1.0/4). In terms of total viewers? "Mom," 7.83 M, "19," 5.17 M, "W & G," 3.96 M. And that's for NBC's alleged flagship sitcom (and only multi-cam). That network's in big trouble.
(Oh, and speaking of "Mom," it was announced last week that Sadie Calvano will appear this season as Christy's daughter Violet, whose character has been absent -- and not even mentioned -- for several seasons. I'm happy Violet isn't going the Chuck Cunningham route.)
Can't call "Last Man Standing" a reboot, more a retooling. It left ABC for financial (budgetary) reasons that had nothing to do with Tim Allen's politics.
TV program development has been crap for several seasons. Deregulation is killing television.
I thought a reboot was when they restart a franchise with new actors. Shouldn't these be called revivals? Other than Last Man Standing which was just production issues.
I never watched it much before but I never got the impression they were that politically oriented. The first episode was very much so, and talking about their own cancellation.
Of all of those, Will & Grace is still the reboot I least understand — it never transcended the mediocre the first time around. Maybe it's linked to the specific progenesis of the project versus the election; the nostalgia isn't for the cast or the show, but merely for its period? When the absolute worst thing you suspected the guy who lost the popular vote but won the electoral college of was that he probably wasn't very smart.
I don't think I'm sold on anything new this year so in terms of broadcast TV I'm just going to continue making sure I keep up with The Good Place, probably catching Speechless and Fresh Off the Boat passively, and pretending that I don't watch Jane the Virgin.
Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. You're listening to the propaganda and not looking at the numbers.
Last week MURPHY had 7.1 million viewers and LAST MAN had 6.1 million. Yet MURPHY is a flop and LAST MAN is a hit?
In fact, MURPHY has been the #1 scripted show in its slot both weeks it's aired, and the second week it only dropped 9%. ABC, NBC and Fox would kill for a sitcom that got over 7 million viewers in Live+Same Day two weeks running.
WILL & GRACE is not toast. It's still NBC's top-rated comedy of the night (nearly a million more viewers than the "hit" SUPERSTORE) and has already been renewed for next season.
As for THE CONNERS, I think it'll be fine. In fact, some believe it'll be even better without her. (Last season she was off-screen much of the time, and even when she was onscreen she seemed to be phoning it in. Maybe it was the Ambien.)
So to quote Mel Brooks, loosen your sphincter. It's not as dire as you've been led to believe.
Glad to hear Violet will back; like the actress and the character. I guess Sadie Calvano has finished college.
Janet Ybarra: I believe reboots of STAR TREK also did pretty well. :)
I don't know what the ratings are, but NBC has SUPERSTORE and THE GOOD PLACE, both of which are really good.
wg
@Janet Ybarra
I think the 2005 reboot of Doctor Who worked because it ejected so much of the original. Different story format, different character dynamics, much more ambitious in terms of target audience — loss and death and family thrown in amongst aliens and bases under siege.
The unsuccessful reboots should probably learn from the third point. Seeking to replicate whatever it was about an old show that people loved is too reductive; the real skill is in being able to spot what you need to throw away.
A lot of these failing reboots being the same cast, same set, etc, I don't think they have that opportunity.
Last Man Standing.
I was upset when Alexandra Krosney was replaced. But now I stopped watching when Molly Ephraim was replaced.
MikeN: THIS is a reboot:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/8f/90/988f90e0f31dd8374881449591708e5d.jpg
I was watching this cutaway gag of 'Everybody Loves Raymond' on Family Guy, though they make fun of how the series has dragged on for 9 seasons, I personally wished it would be re-booted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t5VvpfQvfE
That and "Friends" would be watchable if re-booted.
Leading up to the original MAGNUM PI, Tom Selleck stole those episodes as Lance White on THE ROCKFORD FILES. Total break out star.
Two of the best theme songs ever.
A show's numbers are relative to the expectations of the network. Numbers that Fox would kill for are cause for cancellation at CBS depending on the time slot. Consider how a show performs following an existing hit or how the show is trending. Is the audience growing or reducing? In the case of reboots, another factor is that the network expects a certain number of original fans to show up. If it doesn't meet those numbers that's a telling sign too. WILL & GRACE originally exceeded expectations. So did ROSEANNE. MURPHY BROWN is falling short.
Showing my age here:
I'm thinking back to 1963, and the first "reboot" (although it wasn't called that).
Warner Bros-TV got ABC to pick up && Sunset Strip for a sixth season by promising to "shake up" the old show.
Jack Webb and William Conrad took over, and basically trashed the old format, turning 77SS from light-hearted and amusing to dark and tough.
The "new" 77SS crashed and burned almost immediately; Webb and Conrad spent that last half-season walking back their changes, to no avail.
In more recent times, we've seen any number of attempts to use an old title on a completely different show, and almost always flopping within weeks.
Don't people roll their own any more?
Also, Thursday and Friday are entirely different animals, ratings-wise. "LMS" had a comparable 18-49 ratings/share to "Mom" at 1.3/7, but a far smaller total of 6.15 M viewers. "The Cool Kids" followed with 1.1/5 and 4.9 M, dwarfing second-place ABC's "Speechless" in all categories (0.5/2, 2.43M). "TCK" posted great numbers for a Friday, with cancellable viewership for any night Sunday to Thursday.
I agree with Ken on "Murphy" 2.0 being a disappointment so far. When it was announced it would follow "Mom" in the spring, it seemed a stroke of genius by Les Moonves -- though some of us thought they'd pair on Mondays 9-10, where both series began.
A perfect example: Dick Wolf's "Dragnet." Ed O'Neill did his best as a new Joe Friday, but audiences still saw the ghost of Al Bundy.
Some "Mom" fans on Facebook groups conflated Sadie with Violet's often cranky character (given her family tree, she had every right to be!), believing she was trouble on the set. Believe me, if she had been, Chuck Lorre wouldn't have brought her back; he's experienced enough production woes over the years. But Sadie going to college enabled the series to shift its focus to the support group, making "Mom" stronger as a result.
The STAR TREK series aren't really reboots so much as sequels or so, especially once NEXT GENERATION was on the air you often had two TREK series overlapping and on the air at the same time.
In fact, when Gene Roddenberry tried to bring STAR TREK back in the late '70s, he called it TREK II, more considering a sequel than a reboot or do-over, since word "reboot" didn't exist at the time.
I could see the latest series, DISCOVERY, being called a reboot since so much of the universe is being reimagined.
Likewise, the latest movies since 2009, where new actors were brought in to play the existing roles of Kirk, Spock, while also reimagining the universe somewhat.
@MikeN: I agree, revival is a better word for most of these shows. The Odd Couple with Matthew Perry and Thomas Lennon was a reboot, and a terrible attempt to recreate the magic of a classic. I'm speaking, of course, about the classic New Odd Couple with Ron Glass and Demond Wilson.
Speaking of Jack Webb, DRAGNET was successfully re-booted in the 1960s with Harry Morgan as Friday's partner. As for STAR TREK, I would call NEXT GENERATION and all the rest sequels rather than re-boots (completely different characters and casts). It was the first of the franchise shows, followed by LAW & ORDER, CSI and NCIS.
The networks have given up on "the kids," and are trying to lure back/hold onto us older people with the shows we liked years ago. They've forgotten that we can watch them in syndication, or buy the DVDs. I find this offensive. If you give us something new and worth watching, we'll be there.
An idea for a MASH reboot:
Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un declare war on South Korea, and this time the MASH medical staff are stationed in North Korea instead, sometimes operating on some the same people they were fighting against six decades ago. They are all incredibly old and infirm, and can barely even walk or stand, let alone work or fight, yet they are in an apocalyptic nuclear war zone, so that makes it funny.
Ha, I'm laughing already.
Yeah, well you basically get the idea about how funny and creatively worthy I think any of these reboots are.
Raymond will never be the same without Frank and Marie. Never. No way. Janice B.
Hey Ken - My understanding was that one of the reasons Will & Grace lasted so long initially was that it attracted a very desirable and hard to reach audience for advertisers, mainly younger, more affluent & educated consumers. I believe the same thing kept 30 Rock afloat for as long as it ran ( with the added bonus of being an in-house NBC/Universal property) Comments ?
I remember when "Gilligan's Island" did a reunion movie called "Rescue from Gilligan's Island" back in '78. At the time, I thought that would be it for that show but then a few months later, it was followed by "Castaways from Gilligan's Island" (Spoiler: the entire cast ended up back at the exact same island after being back in civilization 'till at least after the Christmas season). In that sequel, the castaways turn their island into a visiting paradise for various guest stars-a sort of "Love Boat"-rip-off, so to speak. I later read this was creator/showrunner Sherwood Schwartz' attempt to do indeed that weekly. But ratings weren't good enough that time for a regular series order, so only one more TV movie came from that-"The Harlem Globetrotters visit Gilligan's Island". I've yet to watch that one though I found out Sherwood created a Howell son for that one because Jim Backus was ill for much of the production. He recovered enough to do a few scenes, however. Oh, by the way, because she didn't get along with her castmates and when asked to return, she wanted more money than them, Tina Louise didn't return for any of them but did appear with them years later on a forgotten talk show called "The Late Show with Ross Shafer" in 1988 in exchange for a solo appearance before "the rest" appeared and a plug for a movie she just did whose title I forgot about...
Everybody Loves Raymond, centered around one of the twins, and Deborah doesn't approve of the daughter in law.
On two of the reboots, Roseanne and Murphy Brown, the actors just seem to be pushing too hard. The result comes off sounding like a skit on Saturday Night Live. Will & Grace was always so ridiculously broad that it's not as noticeable on their reboot.
Interestingly, one of the cable channels is rerunning The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and I'm watching again after not seeing it for several years. The quality of the writing and the performances are infinitely better than anything on today.
As one of those "older people" I would be very happy watching a good, original series aimed at this audience rather than a lot of sitcoms populated by Millennial hipsters.
I know you are joking, but I would love to see some veterans of either Iraq or Afghanistan put together a new, creative series--comedy, drama or dramedy--that caught what has been unique about those conflicts while tapping into basic and universal aspects of the human condition.
Peter Gould of Better Call Saul just tweeted out a photo of their breakdown board for the season finale that aired Monday night. Any thoughts about how they've done it compared to other rooms you've been in (other than the fact that it's overstuffed... the episode went 20 minutes long)?
https://twitter.com/petergould/status/1049717660722782208
Magnum PI belongs on Friday with the other older-skewing adventure shows. CBS will have to decide whether Magnum's ratings are strong enough to justify canceling or moving one of the three shows already there. So far the answer seems to be "No". CBS should have held back on this show until either "Hawaii Five-O" or "Blue Bloods" became too expensive to renew, or until the stars on one of these shows decides to leave their series.
I hear that they are going to reboot Gilligan's Island. Only this time they'll do it as a comedy.
"....pretty slim." Ken let's not give a big wave goodbye to Dave without talking this over first. You are in Hawaii 3 weeks in December anyway so you can shoot the pilot episode then. You can use the about to be abandoned Magnum P.I. sets and the old Hawaii 5-0 sets. For day as night shots you can cover the sun with one of Jack Lord's toupees, save some money. Christ that guy had great hair, shame it was fake. You can use that time share condo you stay in for Dave's residence. You still have 15 written and ready to go scripts in your garage, all nicely leather bound and autographed. You have Dave Isaacs and Earl Pomerantz at your disposable more then willing to lend a hand. Earl loves Don Ho. Come on Ken, let's reboot this thing in the ass, rename it BIG TSUNAMI DAVE'S, get Ernest Borgnine and Shelly Winters to kick in some Poseidon Adventure shit for the pilot and you can Sherwood Schwartz/ Irwin Allen your way into a successful 5 year run on Fox. Split the dough 60/20/20 between you, Dave and Earl and then fuck off to.......Hawaii!
I've said this before on this blog. The reason that reboots are so popular is simple, Hollywood is completely devoid of original ideas. Its the same reason movies are all sequels and reboots. The networks are afraid to take chances, so they go with the safe and familiar. Shows on cable and streaming may be edgier and have bigger stars, but they're not necessarily better. As I've also said, even the series that try to be original usually come off as pretentious and self absorbed.
M.B.
Slightly off topic but the discussion of success vs flop reminded me. Does anyone remember The Associates, a 1979 series set in a law firm? The cast included Martin Short, Ally Mills, Joe Regalbuto and Wilfred Hyde-White among others and a remarkable team behind it - James L Brooks and the core of Mary Tyler Moore's company, including Stan Daniels and Ed Weinberger.
It was canned after 9 of 13 commissioned episodes - then nominated for 2 Outstanding Writing in a Comedy Series Emmys and a Best TV Actor Musical/Comedy Golden Globe.
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 reboot on Netflix seems to be doing well enough. :-)
I would agree DOCTOR WHO episodes today generally are more fast-paced than the old series. I would even say greater character development as well.
Also, the old series looked as if it had an effects budget of about $6. The new one seems to have improved that as well.
Which is not to say I don't appreciate watching old episodes with Tom Baker running about.
I do miss Sarah Jane quite a bit. Poor Elisabeth Sladen...RIP
E. Yarber: I would disagree on THE HONEYMOONERS of the '60s, they were back to their pre "39" status, as skits on the hour-long Jackie Gleason variety hour.
True, they'd lost the stark, dark edge of their '50s predecessors, but they were a successful element on one of Saturday night's most watched shows. The only mistake Jackie made was not holding on to Audrey Meadows. Sheila MacRae just wasn't an ideal fill in for the three or four years she played Alice.
But, as is often said about other legends, you could have Jackie and Art Carney read the phone book and they'd be great.
Here's what I think is going on in both TV and radio. People who are good at creating stuff are the kind of people who can go into a room, shut the door and come out some time later high fiving each other with something great in their hands. The kind of people who can stare out a window for a while, suddenly snap their finger and say "I've got it!". We often hear how a great song, script or story came about in a matter of minutes or while daydreaming or in the shower or driving. But the people who approve and sell the programming can't accept the fact that creative things can actually happen this way. They think that if somebody stares out a window and says "I've got it!" they're trying to pull a scam on them. There is so much money at stake in the entertainment business that they are afraid to try something new and instead feel that the path to success is to go with a proven winner and repeat something that has been successful in the past. If it worked before then it's gotta work again. There's no consideration of why it worked. They don't think that it matters who acted in it or wrote it or sang it. It was a hit. Period. Can't miss. So...let's do it again. New actors...new singers...who cares? It's that show that did so well. Or that song. It's Thousand Dollar Thursdays or The Phrase That Pays. It's a no-brainer! It will win! The focus group results prove it. And then it doesn't. And they can't understand why it didn't. It's people. Creators. Individuals. Chemistry. A magical combination that came together through creativity and luck. That's what made it work. And without that it won't work the second time around. So what we have is a whole lot of stuff that's unoriginal and not very entertaining and the entertainment business is in a downward spiral as a result. Sure it's risky but maybe if they gave some of the 'stare out the window' people more of a chance to expose their brilliance they'd uncover some newfound greatness. It seems to me that until they do we will not see much improvement any time soon.
Hey, Ken, I was just watching an episode of MASH (unfortunately, not one of yours, it was a Henry Blake episode), but it generated an FQ for you, nevertheless.
The episode was "The Sniper," in which a chopper flie over and wounds the sniper in question.
My question, however, is this: How did the series to acquire the helicopters? How many did the production have? (I don't think there was ever an episode where we saw more than two.)
I'm assuming the series had to hire real pilots to fly them, right? And how did the series get permission to fly them over the Malibu state Park which set as the 4077 exterior?
Thanks!
Regarding those "reboots" there's just too much network machinery looming over the actors.
I actually think the Magnum PI reboot is pretty good. Hawaii 5-0 isn’t really a reboot since all the kept from the original were the title, the character names and the theme song. The characters aren’t even similar.
One more FQ for you, Ken. I understand there was the idea to write Sidney Freedman in as part of the main cast once Radar left but Allan Arbus (the actor who played Sidney) didn't want to.
Why wasn't Arbus interested? Even as a recurring character, he has always been a personal favorite.
Deregulation certainly has hurt network news. Time was, in the old days, networks used their news divisions to satisfy the FCC public service requirement. News was never expected to make money, just serve as a public service.
Once those requirements began to be loosened, networks increasingly expected their news divisions to generate a profit.
All of those changes is what makes HAWAII 5-0 a reboot... the series was completely reimagined just as the new BATTLESTAR GALATICA was reimagined and taken in a totally different direction.
Actually, come to think of it, both those series starred Grace Park. Maybe she's the secret to their success...
There are lines I draw in the sand, but I'm not going to fight anyone who likes the color HONEYMOONERS. Like the DRAGNET of the 1960s, the later Gleason shows were pastel where the original was stark, but Degas didn't do too badly with pastels either. Still, while the latter DRAGNET is the best known because Universal still markets that version, I doubt the musical Kramdens would be remembered much without their connection to the original, just like the current set of reboots will probably be considered footnotes to their shows' glory days. Gleason admitted the 70s specials (with Audrey Meadows back) didn't really work, and an attempt to spin Norton off into his own series failed because Carney apparently couldn't handle the idea of carrying the lead himself.
THE ASSOCIATES was based on a book by John Jay Osborn Jr, who had written THE PAPER CHASE.
If there ever has to be a M*A*S*H reboot, let's do it this way...
I would center it on, believe it or not, a modern-day Frank Burns, who today is the chief administrator of an inner-city hospital. Now hear me out...
Frank is still kind of an out-of-it doofus, but he's obviously grown as a person. He's not a racist or crazy righty or lefty. He's at a point where he usually makes the RIGHT decision... but he still struggles with his old self, and has self-esteem issues on top of that. He's still pining for Hot Lips after all these years.
There's young doctors on staff who remind him a LOT of Hawkeye, B.J. and Trapper John, and he tangles with them. But they're not always right, and neither is he. They all learn from each other. And yes, occasionally he'll tell a story about his crazy days back at the 4077th.
It's probably too mild/PG-rated for today's audiences, I admit. But I'd check it out at least.
Idea for a title: "Third Degree Burns."
Sadie's last show was was November 24, 2016. The first episode that year was October 20. I assume that episode was probably filmed before she started school. If she was taking a regular course load she probably won't graduate for a couple of more years.
Remember the trend of making old TV shows into movies? There were some hits and misses. My guess is that there will be a few more before this trend fizzles out.
Liu Chow says:
"60 year-old actors still acting like they did when they were 30 is creaky and creepy."
Ken, Ken, Ken. Surprising to hear such an ageist comment from a writer/showrunner who should still be doing TV but is not for that very reason. Surely you've noticed the proliferation of ads for online job searches aimed at older Americans" Human Resources and online applications hide behind algorhythms and grading systems that are committing the a legal form of discrimination.
Candice Bergen looked great. The cast is mature. Tough it out. People get old. TV is too overcome by lesser talents just because of their dewy freshness.
There were "old" jokes on Murpjy Brown, it's not like they hid the fact that they had all aged. Her son kept shoving it in her face. In the second episode, he behaved like the male equivalent of the kind of woman that opponents of MeToo accuse women of being.
Hawaii Five-O is a reboot, EXCEPT that Ed Asner played the same role, and they used footage from the original show as a flashback.
Audrey didn’t want to move to Miami...
Steve Lanzi:
Only one problem with your M*A*S*H reboot. For Frank Burns to be "today" the administrator of an inner city hospital, he'd be the oldest one imaginable. Frank was (let's be charitable) 35 when the Korean War ended. That was 65 years ago. He'd be 100.
Set it in the 60s or 70s and maybe you've got something. But now you have to get today's 18-49 audience to care.
---Mike Hagerty
I just hope this current "reboot craze" of television lasts long enough to give us a current-day follow-up to "Northern Exposure" ... maybe call it "Cicely" and have it focus on other residents of the town. My dance card for Monday nights at 10 p.m. is open for this....
@Clara
Considering both parents and a twin are both dead, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Speaking of Gilligan's Island...
Anybody else remember when they rebooted Gilligan's Island as a reality show, based on Survivor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Gilligan%27s_Island
THE ASSOCIATES was a terrific series that ABC lost faith in all too quickly. One episode, "The Censor," is, IMHO, one of the finest sitcom episodes ever, and was Emmy-nominated for its script long after the show left the air.
No they wouldn't...
Post a Comment