Since the demise of Deadwood continues to be a hot button for many of us, especially in the face of the mediocrity of HBO's current offerings, I thought it might be of interest to read a reply letter from HBO that was scanned onto a Deadwood fan site. This does not appear to be a form letter.

http://www.savedeadwood.net/hboletter.htm

When they start combining Deadwood and John from Cincinnati into the same sentence - you know all hope is lost.

When they start combining Deadwood and John from Cincinnati into the same sentence - you know all hope is lost.

You aint just woofin'!

Well, at least that finally puts it rest how and why Deadwood ended. As pissed as I am, I do understand HBO's position, even if it felt like a stab in the back to subscribers who were fans of Deadwood. HBO is a business afterall. I wish they had been more upfront about the movies, which I never believed for a moment would get made.

I guess the real question is, WTF is wrong with people? Something as good as Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome, The Wire gets produced and yet you can't get more than 1.4-2 million people to watch. Yet a show like American Idol dominates for 7 or more seasons in a row, even when you take into account it reaches a wider audience than HBO's shows.

Maybe it's us, maybe we're the idiots, I don't know.

Well, at least that finally puts it rest how and why Deadwood ended. As pissed as I am, I do understand HBO's position, even if it felt like a stab in the back to subscribers who were fans of Deadwood. HBO is a business afterall. I wish they had been more upfront about the movies, which I never believed for a moment would get made.

I guess the real question is, WTF is wrong with people? Something as good as Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome, The Wire gets produced and yet you can't get more than 1.4-2 million people to watch. Yet a show like American Idol dominates for 7 or more seasons in a row, even when you take into account it reaches a wider audience than HBO's shows.

Maybe it's us, maybe we're the idiots, I don't know.

Well don't forget you do have to pay for HBO. Which is a hurdle in itself. Money is the reason I'm not watching Dexter, which I like. I don't want to give Showtime any more money.

The better comparison would be any of the half-decent dramas that get canned on network television. The majority of people really do like quick, no-brainer content most of the time. According to Jim. Need I say more.

Well don't forget you do have to pay for HBO. Which is a hurdle in itself. Money is the reason I'm not watching Dexter, which I like. I don't want to give Showtime any more money.


Well I guess you showed them.:)

When they start combining Deadwood and John from Cincinnati into the same sentence - you know all hope is lost.

Very very well put. What more is there to say.

Very very well put. What more is there to say.

How about "HBO you dirty **** suckers!!":eek:

The interesting thing about that letter is that the inference is that they never intended to conclude 'Deadwood', that they had made up their minds, and that all that foolishness about the two 2-hour "movies" was just pablum designed to placate fans of the show and keep them from both defecting and raising such a stink about it that it affected potential future subscribers.

In other words, they lied. Deliberately. And strung a lot of people along while doing so. Not the type of corporate behavior one would look upon as honorable.

And why would they be so proud of the fact that Milch is continuing to "produce programming for them"...? If he continues to do what he does, masses of people will continue not to watch it. If they neuter him to the point where he simply does another police procedural a la "NYPD Blue" with blue language, then why bother?

My position is that a company with a billion in pure profit is profitable enough to be honest with its fans at least. And it wouldn't kill 'em to provide a fitting closure to one of the greatest television series of all time. It was just plain wrong to leave fans of 'John from Cincinnati' hanging like that.


;)

HBO went from having many good shows to having only a couple now. There was a time when there was something good to watch no matter the time of the year. Now there are 2 shows that interest me and they are months apart. I have canceled HBO and wait for them to get back to greatness before I give them my money again.

In cases like this, voting with your wallet is the only way to get your point across.


Now, if only I could cancel all the other channels , that suck and are in my "tier".

It's very simple math for me. In showtimes case, Dexter is the only show I care about. I can rent a season for about $15 if not less. Showtime = $144 a year. This past "Free" weekend of showtime we wanted to watch exactly ZERO programming other than Dexter. Let me see if I can figure out which is more economical?

In the case of HBO, I can't think of a single thing they show that I want to watch. I saw like 3 episodes of the Sopranos and could never figure out why anyone liked it. But, different strokes... Anyhow, renting the pay channel shows a season behind is tremendously more economical.

For example, Carnival was pretty good(great at times, stupid at others). But on a bang for buck scale it doesn't make sense to subscribe for me. Rental rules!!

The interesting thing about that letter is that the inference is that they never intended to conclude 'Deadwood', that they had made up their minds, and that all that foolishness about the two 2-hour "movies" was just pablum designed to placate fans of the show and keep them from both defecting and raising such a stink about it that it affected potential future subscribers.
Maybe I missed it, but where are you seeing this inference?

Maybe I missed it, but where are you seeing this inference?


Well, the entire article hammered home the point that they didn't feel 'Deadwood' ever had enough viewers to justify the expense of producing a costly period piece. (Same with 'Carnivale', which they also cut off at the knees, and 'Rome' which was at least afforded the kindness to know their second season would be their last. 'JfC' was abandoned in the cradle.) So, it's pretty clear that they never had any intention of throwing more good money after bad, as they saw it, by re-starting production in spite of occasional public protestations to the contrary. They were spoiled by 'The Sopranos' and 'Sex in the City' which fueled HBO's rise to critical dominance as well as vastly increased the subscriber base, and had hoped those successors would "perform" equally well. They didn't, so they were unceremoniously canned.

Do you see a different interpretation?

Obviously the bean counters have gotten control of HBO. The artsy types have lost. In the last few years we had Deadwood, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Elizabeth, Rome, Big Love, and Extras (hilarious). Now the only shows worth watching are Entourage and Curb Your Enthusiasm (both lightweight) and Bill Mahr. Their only continuing shows with any weight are Big Love and The Wire (which I haven't been watching).

Showtime is the new HBO, with Dexter, Brotherhood, and Californication. The best show this year is Mad Men on AMC. It looks like the corporate and CPA types are going to kill HBO's bottom line by making them irrelevant as one of many rather than the shining light of television creativity. Really dumb.

Once Curb Your Enthusiasm is over, HBO programming holds no appeal to me. I'm thinking I'll drop it until the Speilberg/Hanks followup to Band of Brothers comes along.

what gets me is HBO still charges a premium over other premium channels. I guess their perception of themselves still lags reality.

Fhbo

edit: dammit! what is the deal with the forum software not allowing me to write "FHBO" in all caps? Turn off the nanny software please admins!

It's probably just coincidence, but I can't help recall a marketing class I took years ago in college. I vaguely remember something about a life cycle strategy where you spend money, innovate, penetrate the market and establish a foothold in the early phase, then the next phase you 'skim' back the profits by cutting costs, getting rid of poor sellers,etc, esentially ride on top of your newfound market position.

I probably have this screwed up, but it does remind me of what HBO seems to be doing. They spent 4-5 years on big budget, high buzz projects, all the while saying they didn't care about ratings. Then when they hit a peak where they just dominated TV in terms of quality, they started cutting these shows out, introducing very inexpensive shows (Lucky Louie, The Comeback, etc) and now they're just coasting on their reputation as being 'The Buzz'
I would love to know the sales figures for the Deadwood, Rome, Carnivale DVDs. At $80 per set, it wouldn't shock me to find they were at least breaking even from DVD sales alone.

Then again, as an audience, the people did show indifference toward these shows. It will always blow my mind that these great shows would only get a little more than ten to twenty percent of the HBO audience to watch, the other nearly 90% preferred something else. Like I say, we're in the minority.

It seems like the real problem was HBO did not commit to finish to project to begin with. Sounds like season four cost escalation is what the bean counters were looking at.

I have counted my own beans now and they tell me while Deadwood was good while it lasted, but the lack of any conclusion made that time/money poorly spent. With regard to HBO me and my beans will wait for the conclusion of any future series to arrive at NETFLIX before we take the first bite.

I guess the real question is, WTF is wrong with people? Something as good as Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome, The Wire gets produced and yet you can't get more than 1.4-2 million people to watch.Keep an eye on Journeyman. I'm not saying it is as good as Deadwood, Rome or The Wire (though I am saying it is as good as Carnivale :)), but it will die the same death for the same reason.

Maybe it's us, maybe we're the idiots, I don't know.That's a bit harsh, but I understand what you're saying. However, there isn't a right-and-wrong with regard to what folks enjoy, at least not within the parameters we're discussing here. As you acknowledged, massive blocks of viewers with specific preferences will drive the offerings.

In other words, they lied. Deliberately.We can choose to read intent into the words any way we wish, surely. It is important to note that they didn't really do anything unusual for the industry. And there isn't really any evidence that indicates that doing what they did adversely affects them. I'd be hard-pressed to defend a decision to directly alienate fans, if alienating them indirectly was an alternative.

I think we viewers have some responsibility here: If we want companies to operate a certain way, then we should reward them for doing so and punish them for not. That's clearly not happening. We typically don't reward companies for doing what we like to label as the "right thing", and we typically don't punish companies for doing what we like to label as the "wrong thing". Is it any wonder companies operate the way they do?

Well, at least that finally puts it rest how and why Deadwood ended. As pissed as I am, I do understand HBO's position, even if it felt like a stab in the back to subscribers who were fans of Deadwood. HBO is a business afterall. I wish they had been more upfront about the movies, which I never believed for a moment would get made.

I guess the real question is, WTF is wrong with people? Something as good as Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome, The Wire gets produced and yet you can't get more than 1.4-2 million people to watch. Yet a show like American Idol dominates for 7 or more seasons in a row, even when you take into account it reaches a wider audience than HBO's shows.

Maybe it's us, maybe we're the idiots, I don't know.


It is odd that people pay for HBO and yet don't appear to watch much of their original programming. I really don't see the point of HBO without their programming. But, HBO themselves have stated many times they don't believe the ratings are correct. Which I've never exactly thought any of the ratings for tv shows were all that accurate, the way they do it. When they can get more direct readings of what people are watching, covering many more people, then I guess I might consider them being right.

Still, HBO is a pay service , but yet they want good ratings for their shows all of a sudden, but they don't think the ratings are correct. That sounds like a mixed up mess, kind of like their current line up of shows.

Keep an eye on Journeyman. I'm not saying it is as good as Deadwood, Rome or The Wire (though I am saying it is as good as Carnivale :)), but it will die the same death for the same reason.

That's a bit harsh, but I understand what you're saying. However, there isn't a right-and-wrong with regard to what folks enjoy, at least not within the parameters we're discussing here. As you acknowledged, massive blocks of viewers with specific preferences will drive the offerings.

Yeah, you're right, that was a bit harsh, I do want to avoid casting judgement based on people's preference for their TV shows.

I guess it's frustrating when I hear people complaining about American TV dumbing down the country, an intellectual wasteland, etc and when some decent programming comes along, they ignore it in favor of an updated version of 'The Gong Show'. Combine TV's penchant for imitation with the fact that this new crop of shows (reality shows, game shows, contests) are really cheap, it creates a perfect storm of crap, IMHO. I do see the need for some mindless entertainment, everyone needs to veg out once in a while, but I also prefer to see some a reasonable ratio between mindless entertainment and thought provoking entertainment.

Oh well, at least PBS Ken Burn's 'The War' got great ratings, made me feel like there was some hope yet.

Now do we have proof that HBO was the guilty party here, Fredfa?

The interesting thing about that letter is that the inference is that they never intended to conclude 'Deadwood', that they had made up their minds, and that all that foolishness about the two 2-hour "movies" was just pablum designed to placate fans of the show and keep them from both defecting and raising such a stink about it that it affected potential future subscribers.

In other words, they lied. Deliberately. And strung a lot of people along while doing so. Not the type of corporate behavior one would look upon as honorable.
Yup they lied. Never had any intention of making the movies.

Yup they lied. Never had any intention of making the movies.

You guys are so full of ****. You have no idea of the exact circumstances. When HBO references "business reasons not to be disclosed here", of course you immediately assume that it was all HBO's issue, right?

What you have no idea of, is if the principal actors were demanding raises, or if Milch was demanding extraordinarily expensive scenes for the season.

The set was largely a fixed cost at this point. It was built. If there were escallating costs, maybe it was up to the producers to figure out a way to conclude in a more reasonable manner, or the actors to ask for realistic compensation.

The movies too could have been dependent on fixed costs that Milch couldn't, or wouldn't adhere to.

This letter revealed very little about what actually happened.

I don't think anyone is doubting that we don't have the whole story as to every detail about HBO's decision to ax the series. That's not the issue. The issue is that they have not been honest with their viewers as to when or why they did it. You can state that they have no obligation as a company to reveal details of their business practices and that's correct. But they have a moral obligation, in my opinion, not to deliberately mislead viewers with false hope that the series may return if indeed they had, as this letter seems to support, no intention of doing so. They had made their decision; they just didn't tell anyone and allowed a false impression to build up that has created resentment. That seem right to you?

Here come the HBO apologists. Was that guy on the OJ jury?

Well, the entire article hammered home the point that they didn't feel 'Deadwood' ever had enough viewers to justify the expense of producing a costly period piece. (Same with 'Carnivale', which they also cut off at the knees, and 'Rome' which was at least afforded the kindness to know their second season would be their last. 'JfC' was abandoned in the cradle.) So, it's pretty clear that they never had any intention of throwing more good money after bad, as they saw it, by re-starting production in spite of occasional public protestations to the contrary. They were spoiled by 'The Sopranos' and 'Sex in the City' which fueled HBO's rise to critical dominance as well as vastly increased the subscriber base, and had hoped those successors would "perform" equally well. They didn't, so they were unceremoniously canned.

Do you see a different interpretation?

Bingo!

It is about dollars, plain and simple. Deadwood was a great show, one of the best on TV ever, IMO, but if it didn't work out for HBO like they wanted and or give them the returns they wanted, it was a simple dollars and SENSE business decision, that negates what HBO viewers and consumers wanted.

Here come the HBO apologists. Was that guy on the OJ jury?

Wrong. It could have been 100% HBO's fault. But you have no factual evidence of that. I'm simply pointing out that this letter revealed nothing to add to an anti-HBO case, and no reason to accuse them of lying.

You, and I mean you directly vurbano, see every issue as 100% at the fault of the corporation. This is clear in every thread you contribute to. Life's not as simple as your limited viewpoint pretends it is.

Wrong. It could have been 100% HBO's fault. But you have no factual evidence of that. I'm simply pointing out that this letter revealed nothing to add to an anti-HBO case, and no reason to accuse them of lying.

You, and I mean you directly vurbano, see every issue as 100% at the fault of the corporation. This is clear in every thread you contribute to. Life's not as simple as your limited viewpoint pretends it is.

While I agree that indivduals can be screws, 99.9% of corps have one purpose, to make profit and keep shareholders happy. Inherent in that is their will long before yours and mine. To that extent thinking the corps care about or even are looking out for your interests is naive to say the least. Even when they are "looking out" for consumers interests, it is because it means dollar signs to corps. Corps are not in business to be moral first or to obligated to consumers.

Even when corps donate and sponsor things it isn't because of good will even at the best of events, like cancer charities etc. They get a write off with donations and advertising with both donations and sponsoring. The end result maybe of some good, but the initial intent is profit motive.

Wrong. It could have been 100% HBO's fault. But you have no factual evidence of that. I'm simply pointing out that this letter revealed nothing to add to an anti-HBO case, and no reason to accuse them of lying.

You, and I mean you directly vurbano, see every issue as 100% at the fault of the corporation. This is clear in every thread you contribute to. Life's not as simple as your limited viewpoint pretends it is.

Evidence is required on the Forum?

Well, movies aside, one of issues of HBO and their honesty is that HBO tried very hard to paint a picture that David Milch walked into Chris Albrect's office and said 'I don't want to do Deadwood anymore' and thus caused Deadwood to be cancelled. This letter certainly contradicts that version of history.

Ironically, had HBO been more upfront, it would have been easier to swallow and deal with. It's tough to argue with them when they say 'Hey, Deadwood costs $60 million per season, and only 1.4 million of you are watching, and that number is steadily falling. We don't want to lose money. Sorry.'

Yeah, I would still be pissed, but at least it would all make sense, be reasonable, and would have skipped the pointless and stupid lying about Milch, and there would have been less controversy about it over time.

Evidence is required on the Forum?To avoid rebuttal, indeed.

If there's a reference somewhere in that letter to the Deadwood follow-up movies not being made, can someone point it out to me? The person writing seems to be referring only to the reasons Deadwood was not renewed for a 4th season, and says nothing whatsoever about whether plans for the follow-up movies are still in development or not.

If there's a reference somewhere in that letter to the Deadwood follow-up movies not being made, can someone point it out to me? The person writing seems to be referring only to the reasons Deadwood was not renewed for a 4th season, and says nothing whatsoever about whether plans for the follow-up movies are still in development or not.

Per Ian McShane, they're striking the sets. If they were planning to do the follow-up movies, they would have burned them down during the filming, killing two birds with one stone. Do you honestly think that, at this point, they have any intention of doing them?

HBO merely expressed its intention to make two Deadwood movie at some future time. As with all such expressions of future intent, whether it was made entirely in good faith, was cynical BS from the get go, or something in between is an imponderable – unless your mind reading skills are a whole lot better than mine.

On one hand, there's nothing in the letter that indicated anything about the movies. But, consider this, they did lie about how deadwood came to be cancelled, that's indisputable now. Then consider that the same reasoning behind cancelling Deadwood would apply to making the movies. Just my opinion here. If HBO felt Deadwood season 4 was a waste of money, why would they even consider making two movies? Wouldn't they also be a waste of HBO's money? There's no upside to HBO monetarily speaking. You can't say they would do it to make the fans happy, 'cuz if there were enough Deadwood fans to make it worth HBO's money, they would have never cancelled it in the first place. We should just put this to rest. HBO made a business decision that was not unreasonable, it just sucked.

On a more speculative note, just throwing this out there as a possibilty: Did anyone make a connection between HBO's letter saying that Season 4 was going to be much more expensive for reasons they couldn't get into, and Milch's recent statement that if Ed O'neill had played Swearengen that Deadwood would still be on the air? Is it possible that Ian McShane was going to ask for big bucks, like James Gandolfini type money? Let's face it, at that point McShane was certainly dominating Deadwood. Just guessing, based on nothing more than those two statements.

HBO merely expressed its intention to make two Deadwood movie at some future time. As with all such expressions of future intent, whether it was made entirely in good faith, was cynical BS from the get go, or something in between is an imponderable – unless your mind reading skills are a whole lot better than mine.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/images/icons/icon14.gif

On a more speculative note, just throwing this out there as a possibilty: Did anyone make a connection between HBO's letter saying that Season 4 was going to be much more expensive for reasons they couldn't get into, and Milch's recent statement that if Ed O'neill had played Swearengen that Deadwood would still be on the air? Is it possible that Ian McShane was going to ask for big bucks, like James Gandolfini type money? Let's face it, at that point McShane was certainly dominating Deadwood. Just guessing, based on nothing more than those two statements.

That's an interesting speculation, but I would have thought he and the rest of the cast were under contract for 5 years. Isn't that the "industry standard"? Their release from their contracts would have come after HBO decided to flush season 4. In any event, I doubt any of the cast would risk the entire production by making unreasonable salary demands. They all knew 'Deadwood' could be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Listening to some of them now, it sounds like they'd do it for scale.

Sure would be nice to know what the behind the scenes machinations actually were. Perhaps someday someone will write a book. Maybe Chris Albrecht might want to clear the air and burn some bridges. :D

If there's a reference somewhere in that letter to the Deadwood follow-up movies not being made, can someone point it out to me? The person writing seems to be referring only to the reasons Deadwood was not renewed for a 4th season, and says nothing whatsoever about whether plans for the follow-up movies are still in development or not.
Would you mention them if you were HBO and had perpetrated this lie?

HBO's reasons of high costs + low viewership (or more specically a declining audiance) makes sense. However that seems to be the opposeite case for lucky louie and they still cancelled it.

now this isn't about whether the show was good or not, or if you iked it. just hbo's criteria for keeping a show.

there obviously wasn't any budget for the show, and from what I've heard/read, their audiance grew as the season went along.

in the end, hbo does what it wants because it can. like any other network, it'll be hit and miss most of the time. unfortunately, it used to be more hit.

HBO's reasons of high costs + low viewership (or more specically a declining audiance) makes sense. However that seems to be the opposeite case for lucky louie and they still cancelled it. Well in the case of lucky louie I can forgive them (I thought it sucked). Deadwood, not so much ;).

HBO's reasons of high costs + low viewership (or more specically a declining audiance) makes sense. However that seems to be the opposeite case for lucky louie and they still cancelled it.

now this isn't about whether the show was good or not, or if you iked it. just hbo's criteria for keeping a show.

there obviously wasn't any budget for the show, and from what I've heard/read, their audiance grew as the season went along.

in the end, hbo does what it wants because it can. like any other network, it'll be hit and miss most of the time. unfortunately, it used to be more hit.

I suspect HBO is 'swinging for the fences', to use a baseball term. They keep flopping out cheap series in the hopes that one of them takes off and turns into a monster hit. Rather than stick with a mediocre success, they just cash it in and take another swing. Playing the odds I guess. In this day and age though, that's the only winning formula: cheap show+massive ratings. Anything less is unacceptable I guess.

That's an interesting speculation, but I would have thought he and the rest of the cast were under contract for 5 years. Isn't that the "industry standard"? Their release from their contracts would have come after HBO decided to flush season 4. In any event, I doubt any of the cast would risk the entire production by making unreasonable salary demands. They all knew 'Deadwood' could be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Listening to some of them now, it sounds like they'd do it for scale.

Sure would be nice to know what the behind the scenes machinations actually were. Perhaps someday someone will write a book. Maybe Chris Albrecht might want to clear the air and burn some bridges. :D

The more I think about it, my theory doesn't hold water. McShane or anyone else would realize, prior to Season 3 shooting, that Deadwood's ratings were low and falling, and that he would have no real leverage in that situation.

In this day and age though, that's the only winning formula: cheap show+massive ratings. Anything less is unacceptable I guess.Absolutely. Showtime isn't much different. The Tudors is great, sure, but watch: I bet there won't be a third season.

Its unfortunate HBO keeps shooting for the Sopranos formula, i.e. cheap costs (at least early on) +high viewership, every time. They had some really good programming that was canceled 2-3 seasons too soon, i.e. Carnivale, Rome, Deadwood. For their decisions, I have decided, like many people, to vote with my $$ and not support HBO.

As have I, but I still don't think that means that HBO made the wrong decision for them, even if they did make the wrong decision for us. Time Warner has dozens of other ways of investing their money, and if any one of them holds promise for a greater return than from another season of an HBO series, then they have little choice but to choose the better investment. I think the magic for us would come from viewers on a mass scale deciding to pay more for programming. If that happens, then it would put investments like a third season of Rome above some of the alternatives.

If there's a reference somewhere in that letter to the Deadwood follow-up movies not being made, can someone point it out to me? The person writing seems to be referring only to the reasons Deadwood was not renewed for a 4th season, and says nothing whatsoever about whether plans for the follow-up movies are still in development or not.

I agree, nothing there about the movies. However, the news in recent days that the sets are being taken down doesn't seem to bode well for their prospects.

As have I, but I still don't think that means that HBO made the wrong decision for them, even if they did make the wrong decision for us. Time Warner has dozens of other ways of investing their money, and if any one of them holds promise for a greater return than from another season of an HBO series, then they have little choice but to choose the better investment. I think the magic for us would come from viewers on a mass scale deciding to pay more for programming. If that happens, then it would put investments like a third season of Rome above some of the alternatives.

I hate to keep harping on this, but let's not forget that HBO is a company that made a billion in profit on 3 or 4 billion in revenue last year. "Investing" in quality programming that will generate the buzz required to increase subscriber rolls is exactly what they're supposed to be doing with all that cash. They can afford it!! It's not really how many people are watching; it's how many people perceive value in the programming. 'Deadwood' and 'Rome' both generate that kind of buzz. 'Tell Me You Love Me' and 'Lucky Louis' do not.

I think we'd like to think that shows like Deadwood and Rome attract subscribers to HBO, but I really see no evidence that proves that. I suspect that if such a correlation existed, Time Warner would capitalize on it, as the best manner in which to invest their capital, don't you? I perceive value and you perceive value in a manner perhaps quite differently from other folks. And that's the problem. If we want what we want we really need to get other people to agree with our sensibilities, value our values, etc.

Push comes to shove, it's a corporation. They only do things that will give them the biggest return on their dollar. If they thought the goodwill garnered by allowing these series to have a graceful exit would be worth one penny more than it cost them, they would do it. That's the only way. It sucks, but that is part of what a corporation does, maximize profits for the stockholder--in fact they're required to do that by law. Now if it was a private company, ala 'Ben and Jerry's we could at least have those expectations.

That being said, I do question at times whether HBO isn't missing a chance to achieve a little more success with shows via their scheduling. One night with a lineup of perhaps Deadwood, Carnivale, Rome or Deadwood, Rome, Sopranos etc might have achieved momentum. Two or three shows in a row with the right 'vibe' are much more likely to make me sit down and watch them all in a row, live, as opposed to recording or watching later 'On Demand'.

I felt the same way when the SciFi channel broke up 'SciFi Friday'--SG1,SGA, and BSG all in a row. They did that and ratings tumbled. Big Love (not my favorite) just didn't belong in the lineup with Sopranos or Deadwood.

Deadwood did drag out in the second and third season. The first season had some focus with Wild Bill, but Hurst was never that compelling a villian, and only okay as a plot device. I feel the dialogue kept most of the actors thinking more about remembering their lines and less about acting, so many of the performances came off stiff. Or the director wanted them stiff, which is just as bad. The overuse of foul language was ridiculous, and really helped to trivialize the show, despite getting it some buzz early on.

I feel that if Deadwood was paced more like Rome and had toned down the language, it would have been a bigger hit and reached a larger audience without "selling out" or appealing to the lowest common denominator. Deadwood seemed to be more about the writer and his overindulgences rather than on making a compelling show (though it had its moments).

At any rate, I don't see why anyone would subscribe to a premium service for a few shows. I just wait for the DVD sets and rent them, even buying two will come in less than an annual subscription except for inflated HBO rates.

At any rate, I don't see why anyone would subscribe to a premium service for a few shows. I just wait for the DVD sets and rent them, even buying two will come in less than an annual subscription except for inflated HBO rates.

I found having 2 or 3 good shows on compelling enough to subscribe to HBO. The $15/mo provided ~8+ hours of quality entertainment value is ok by me. Beyond the original programming, I don't care much for HBO. And you are correct, paying for the DVDs can be cheaper, which I will do if only 1 at a time good show exists.

And I think that brings us back to HBO's business model: They're in business to sell subscriptions to folks who want to watch movies. >shrug<

Absolutely. Showtime isn't much different. The Tudors is great, sure, but watch: I bet there won't be a third season.
I think showtime is kickin HBO's butt now. Weeds, Tudors, Californication. HBO has nothing besides Big Love.

I think showtime is kickin HBO's butt now. Weeds, Tudors, Californication.

Don't forget Dexter!

And I think that brings us back to HBO's business model: They're in business to sell subscriptions to folks who want to watch movies. >shrug<

HBO: it's not TV, it's cropped movies when Blockbuster or netflix is too much of a hassle.

Couple things here.

1. Several people bring up Rome as another example of HBO cutting a show short. I do not understand that. I do recall there was a possibility that they were not going to make the 2nd season because of operation costs. But I never remember hearing that it was ever going to go longer than two seasons. Can someone enlighten me on this?

2. I agree that HBO's original programming is nowhere near what it was. But how is that solely their fault? Shouldn't a bunch of the blame go to the creators of the new shows as well? John from Cincinnati was a bust because it wasn't very good. Not bad, but not in the Soprano/Deadwood/Band of Brothers etc.. type echelon.

So their programming has dropped in quality. But no one seems to bring up the lack of quality programming out there to air.

Many seem to be blaming HBO for not airing quality, but how do we even know they have vetoed quality projects and the like?

I still have hope for the deadwood movies. Sex and the City has been of the air for how long, and now a motion picture is coming out?

I still have hope for the deadwood movies. Sex and the City has been of the air for how long, and now a motion picture is coming out?

Not gonna happen. The sets are either down, or coming down. Deadwood is dead! RIP!

Not gonna happen. The sets are either down, or coming down. Deadwood is dead! RIP!

I am not holding out any hope. Well, it was fun while it lasted. In honor of Deadwood "F**k those c**ks**king c**ts"

HBO: it's not TV, it's ... movies when Blockbuster or netflix is too much of a hassle.In a way, that's really it. As soon as we tried Netflix, our attraction towards HBO kinda vanished.

To be fair, though, unless what you want is available on HD-DVD/bluRay, and Netflix has it in stock available for you as readily as the regular DVDs, and you have the matching-format HD-DVD/bluRay player, then Netflix isn't quite as good as HBO HD, which is almost always in HD.

1. Several people bring up Rome as another example of HBO cutting a show short. I do not understand that. I do recall there was a possibility that they were not going to make the 2nd season because of operation costs. But I never remember hearing that it was ever going to go longer than two seasons. Can someone enlighten me on this?I think the point is that there was never any intention NOT to go more than two seasons. The decision was made to stop after two seasons, not because they couldn't figure out a way to set up a third season of the story. It wasn't because any of the actors refused to return. If I remember correctly, there was mention that at least part of the rationale for not renewing Rome for a third season was financial.

Contrast that with The Wire, where there are clear statements from artistic staff saying that the story will end with the fifth season.

2. I agree that HBO's original programming is nowhere near what it was. But how is that solely their fault?Preaching to the choir here -- there is no fault. It's just the way things are.

Many seem to be blaming HBO for not airing quality, but how do we even know they have vetoed quality projects and the like?I think here's where things get sticky: I think quality is available; quality, though, sometimes costs money -- money that has to be the best possible investment. And my guess is that that's not the case because television viewers don't reward programmers for providing expensive quality in anything close to direct proportion to cost.

I think here's where things get sticky: I think quality is available; quality, though, sometimes costs money -- money that has to be the best possible investment. And my guess is that that's not the case because television viewers don't reward programmers for providing expensive quality in anything close to direct proportion to cost.

I think one of the problems is that HBO is part of a larger conglomerate. While HBO is hugely profitable, even when they're shelling out big bucks for fabulous period pieces like 'Deadwood', 'Rome', and 'Carnivale', the rest of the giganto corporation they belong to is not. So, they use HBO's revenues to prop up the poorly performing branches so that the all-important stockholders can continue to bask in those all-important quarterly gains. After all, as we've read here, that's all that should matter in a capitalistic society, right?

But the "artistic" side of HBO suffers in this scenario, and as a result, we get 'Deadwood' and the others canceled and 'Tell Me You Love Me' renewed even though they can easily afford to do them all, and retain their cache as the premiere provider of high-quality television. When the bean counters run things to this extent, the audience is deprived of what great productions the company's talent can create. And frankly, if HBO, with all their resources, isn't going to do this kind of stuff anymore, who is?

You're right Archiguy - HBO has maintained their penetration (27%-29% ?) and until that starts to drop, don't expect them to reverse course (back). Time Warner can take that Deadwood money and produce a couple new 10 episode a year originals and launch a new network or two. Then compel carriage in 100% of households. Makes much more sense.

And frankly, if HBO, with all their resources, isn't going to do this kind of stuff anymore, who is?Probably no one. And apparently only an insignificant number of people care enough about this. Otherwise, it would become enough of a societal priority that the aspect causing the lack of quality program would be addressed. I suppose society as a whole has many more important things to devote societal resources towards. >shrug<

And frankly, if HBO, with all their resources, isn't going to do this kind of stuff anymore, who is?

FX is my last hope. They've been doing well. Far better than HBO have in the new drama stakes over the past year or two. Pity about the ads, but at least they have some programming.

I can see them trying their hand at a western. Not with the same complexity of Deadwood but I don't think the genre is out of their view.

I think the point is that there was never any intention NOT to go more than two seasons. The decision was made to stop after two seasons, not because they couldn't figure out a way to set up a third season of the story. It wasn't because any of the actors refused to return. If I remember correctly, there was mention that at least part of the rationale for not renewing Rome for a third season was financial.

See, I thought Rome was first considered a two year show. then after the lukewarm ratings they considered not finishing. But they went ahead and finished it as originally planned. People, myself included, might have wanted more, but there was never a plan to go past that third year. Or maybe that was as long as the joint companies (HBO,BBC) decided to go with it. and if they wanted to continue it they would have had to go it alone?

I think here's where things get sticky: I think quality is available; quality, though, sometimes costs money -- money that has to be the best possible investment. And my guess is that that's not the case because television viewers don't reward programmers for providing expensive quality in anything close to direct proportion to cost.

I don't disagree with this at all.

Except for the implied "quality" that is available.

As archiguy stated, if HBO isn't going to do this stuff anymore who is?

SCIFI, SHO, SPIKE, USA? I would assume that these networks are not shelling out the big bucks for their "quality" shows. Atleast not big bucks that HBO would gladly have matched to air the programming instead.

I am leaning more towards HBO not having the proper people in place to know quality from crap.

I think we'll continue to get it, we'll just get it from the more hungry networks. Showtime is stepping up because they'd love to become the "new HBO". We're also seeing a lot of quality programming (albeit sans all the "c*cks*ck*rs") like Damages, The Shield, The Closer (not my cup of tea), etc. coming from the cablenets who are more aggressively jockeying for big carriage fee boosts at the next contract.

The problem with HBO is that the tremendous investment in original programming didn't result in a comparable increase in subscriptions and so far, a reduction in that investment hasn't resulted in a significant decline - yet.

I am leaning more towards HBO not having the proper people in place to know quality from crap.

Oh, I think the execs at HBO probably know the difference (the OAR haters excluded), but their bosses at Time Warner don't, or more accurately, don't care. If HBO were a stand alone company, we might very well be enjoying a forth season of 'Deadwood' right now. After all, if they didn't have the rest of the conglomerate to help prop up and impatient shareholders to mollify, then they might very well have a different mindset on how to spend all that cash - an artistic one. And all of us (the few, the proud...) who crave quality TV would benefit.

Well, I hate to be a broken record but the networks do respond to audience tastes, and by large the audience has taken a look at these great shows and then walked away toward something else. The shows we consider quality were simply not liked by most people, by the vast majority.

I had a few friends that loved Deadwood and the others, but mostly I heard "I don't want to watch a show where I can't understand what they're saying"--look at MadTVs skit about Deadwood :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjoEK_nlSk

I heard similar things about Rome, that the plot was too hard to follow, couldn't keep track of who was who, etc.

People these days are telling all the Networks to keep it simple. There's a few exceptions as always, but by and large people are looking to tune out after a long day at work. It just sucks to be us! It's almost like we're saying "hey, we're just a small minority, but would you mind making some shows for us. Oh, and btw, these shows are probably going to cost three times as much as your normal programming."

But the "artistic" side of HBO suffers in this scenario, and as a result, we get 'Deadwood' and the others canceled and 'Tell Me You Love Me' renewed even though they can easily afford to do them all, and retain their cache as the premiere provider of high-quality television. When the bean counters run things to this extent, the audience is deprived of what great productions the company's talent can create. And frankly, if HBO, with all their resources, isn't going to do this kind of stuff anymore, who is?

You can imagine how may 'Tell Me You Love Me''s they can kick out for the cost of a 'Deadwood'.

I had a few friends that loved Deadwood and the others, but mostly I heard "I don't want to watch a show where I can't understand what they're saying"--look at MadTVs skit about Deadwood :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjoEK_nlSk

Here's their "PAX-TV" version of "The Sopranos".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp4QVYNAFcQ

People these days are telling all the Networks to keep it simple. There's a few exceptions as always, but by and large people are looking to tune out after a long day at work. It just sucks to be us! It's almost like we're saying "hey, we're just a small minority, but would you mind making some shows for us. Oh, and btw, these shows are probably going to cost three times as much as your normal programming."

You may be right, but I looked forward to "tuning out" the rest of the world for an hour on Sunday nights with Sopranos, Carnivale and Deadwood.

You can imagine how may 'Tell Me You Love Me''s they can kick out for the cost of a 'Deadwood'.

That show -- from the episode I saw -- would be greatly improved by the addition of a Swearingen-type character.

I post again to this dormant thread to report to my fellow Deadwood lovers that Deadwood was not the first place where David Milch first used the wonderful word, “Hoople-head.” In a 1996 NYPD Blue episode, “The Backboard Jungle,” Sipowicz referred to an arrogant, kid reporter, who was an eyewitness to a murder but was refusing to cooperate, as a “hoople-head.” It wasn’t quite as it good as it was when Al Swearengen said it but it was pretty good, nonetheless. :)

Everything is better when Swearengen says it! I can't figure out the ****** roles McShane has been playing in. He was *born* to play the badguy. Anyone making a movie with any sort of evil CEO, crimelord etc should be throwing big money at McShane. Just make his character very similar to Swearengen and let him rip.

Normally scenes with the badguy early in the movie are just boring exposition, where the badguy lays groundwork for his evil schemes. With McShane, you get a 'heavy' who's interesting right off the bat, whether he's yelling at a lackey, or cleaning up a bloodstain. Most importantly, you get a bad guy who just scares the **** out of you, not because of muscles, or guns, but just because he's miles ahead of everyone. With McShane as the antagonist, you immediately feel like the hero is in over his head.