Zero Hour / ABC - Page 5

What are the odds ABC will air the remainder of this and 666 on it's website? Like what they did with the last two episodes of Happy Town awhile back.

Slim and none and I think I just saw Slim riding out of town.

Lol.

That's a shame. Why not throw 'em on their website and gain some ad revenue, and good will, from that? They're not making any money sitting on a shelf.

Oh Hell no. Horrible video/audio quality. I prefer watching shows at 1080p23.976, with a decent bitrate. And before anyone says that ABC is 720p, so what.

666 Park Avenue and Zero Hour should be burned off this summer.

One of these days, the rocket scientists that are TV execs will figure out that there is value and ratings in creating trust with their audience. Their approach of throwing as many series up against the wall to see what sticks does not work any longer. People will not invest the time or emotion in a new show any longer because of the horrible track record of cancelling shows. One of them will eventually come up with the idea of guaranteeing that a new show will play out it's entire season regardless of ratings, they'll market the heck out of it, and it will, at a minimum, do much better in it's debut and initial eps than any of the recent offerings. From there it will be time for the others to copy and we'll finally get some new series on the air that we know will stick.

I almost never watch a new show right away anymore.  I wait at least 2-3 weeks to see if it will get cancelled.  Now I don't count to the ratings but it's obvious a lot of others do the same thing and it's a self fulfilling prophecy.   I don't have a problem trying a cable show right away since they don't cancel them after 2 showings. 

Shows used to get a chance to earn an audience when people who understood entertainment and grew up in the studio system ran the networks. Now you have MBA's and marketing people who don't understand anything other than stuido audience testing and ratings. It's like the difference between American and Asian businesses. Americans planning a quarter or two ahead, and Asian companies with strategic plans spanning decades. Oddly, the cable networks seem to get it, as you almost never hear of these kinds of early cancellations of a cable drama. It's odd because most of these cable nets are run by the same conglomerates. Clearly, the cable method generates more audience loyalty and trust.

A good parody of networks execs is with the Showtime series "Episodes." Or maybe one might say it is not a parody.

I think that's an excellent point. I'm the marketing director for a retailer, and I think you're right about the marketing and numbers folks running the show. My two cents would be that you need to use those results only as a tool to assist you in your decision making and not let them wag the dog. I've seen that happen in lots of businesses where statistics and numbers are held in too high a regard, while completely ignoring instinct as well has human emotion/behavior. Those who find that middle ground between the two are always the most successful.

A lack of long-term strategic vision affects a lot of industries these days. Been going on for a while now. I've always wondered why networks don't use a more holistic model. I realize that the more popular a show as determined by the Neilsen company brings in higher ad rates. That's the way the system is built, and it's clearly in decline. But there might be a better way to wring some more life out of it. For example, using the FOX Network, why not let a ratings behemoth like 'American Idol' provide the financial fodder to allow a less popular but possibly more redeeming show like 'Firefly' to survive, win awards and bring prestige, and hopefully build an audience down the line?

In other words, build a broadly-targeted schedule with something for everyone and use total ad revenue to finance the cumulative effort. You'd think it would have to be ultimately more lucrative than the brilliant system in place now where you pay for a ton of pilots, reject most of them, and watch the ones you do greenlight crash and burn -- wash, rinse, repeat next year. Or now, three times a year.

But then, what do I know? I'm not in those guys' tax bracket.

I decided to watch the most recent episode last night. Turns out it was the best of the 3 that's aired. Sucks we won't be able to see how it all concludes.

Did you follow the ratings? Dead air might have drawn more. ABC had no choice.

But why does it make more sense to just play reruns that don't score any better?

I feel like that's how network television worked through most of my childhood in the 60's and 70's. It was the rare show back then that got cancelled after 2 or 3 episodes.

Looking at lists of quickly cancelled shows I came across this gem:

Heil Honey I'm Home! (September 30, 1990)
British TV's Galaxy comedy that spoofed American sitcoms of the 1950s and 1960s by featuring caricatures of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun who live in matrimonial bliss until they become neighbours to a Jewish couple.

Yikes. OK, that one deserved to be cancelled after just one airing. But c'mon. Zero Hour deserved better than it got.

Because reruns cost ZERO to produce.

That's only cheaper if f the episodes of the other show weren't already in the can. I don't know about this particular show, but for a 12 episode mid season show, there's a really good chance that it was already done. For example, one of the shows I worked on this season, Touch, was already completed before the first episode of the season had aired.

If the various contracts are based on episodes aired rather than episodes produced, airing episodes "in the can" still cost more than reruns.

[BTW, Zero Hour produced six episodes.]

Wouldn't a large part of this be due to the networks creating/producing the shows themselves, and that today networks purchase shows from independent production companies and even create and produce shows for each, such as NBC producing House for FOX as well as make them for themselves? It's not the same financial environment, where a few tent-poles could carry some poor ratings performers.

I seem to recall a show in the late 60's maybe (too lazy to Google it now) - starred Tim Conway - think the title was "Turn On" - supposed to be a "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" clone - lasted one episode and was canned.

I loved the concept behind the show. I'm a sucker for things like this and you've got to work really hard to screw it up for me. Well, these guys must have worked overtime, because despite wanting and trying to like it, I didn't.

Yeah, it was 'Turn On'. From what I read, there were stations on the East coast that refused to go back to it after the first commercial break, and some stations in later time zones that refused to air the first episode at all.

My dad also told me about some show with Jackie Gleason that got cancelled after the first or second episode, because basically he came out and did a drunk rambling monologue in live TV. That one was before my time, and I don't know the name of it.

Oh, I think it must have been this one:
You're in the Picture (January 20, 1961)
CBS game show starring Jackie Gleason, which received such negative reviews that Gleason used the same timeslot on January 27 to apologize. He called the previous week's show "the biggest bomb—it would make the H-bomb look like a two-inch salute". Gleason used the timeslot to revive The Jackie Gleason Show as a talk show for the remainder of his contract.

And now that I think about it some more, I remember a coworker involved with Viva Laughlin, telling me about how the showrunner announced that the show was already cancelled during the premiere party.. That's got to bring a party down.
Edited by vfxproducer - 3/11/13 at 10:58am

I walk by Silvercup Studios regularly (where it was/is filmed) in Long Island City, there is still a door with a copy paper sign saying "Zero Hour do not think of opening this door", I wonder if they're still filming all the episodes for eventual release on dvd, etc.

ABC Network doesn't make shows for themselves. ABC Studios makes shows that are mostly bought by the network.

CBS Network doesn't make shows for themselves. CBS Studios makes shows that are mostly bought by the network.

NBC Network doesn't make shows for themselves. NBC Universal makes shows that are mostly bought for the network.

You get the picture. The networks and the production studios are two separate entities, each with their own set of books. Selling a show to a corporate partner is not necessarily done at a cheaper price. The cost of production is the same, no mater who the product is sold too.

I don't remember the parties involved, but there was even a lawsuit regarding sweetheart deals.

I sure as Hell hope that ABC airs all of the episodes of this series. I managed to get my hands on an un-aired episode (sorry, can't say how or from where), and it is only getting better.

Damn ABC for pulling the series.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'd like to see them too .. if you hear anything, be sure and let us know ..

+1 I actually liked it.

It's certainly better than those reality shows.

Well, that's a very low bar.