There are some really good shows on television, fostered by their networks, as well, though: Lost, Mad Men, Bones, NCIS, 24, House, The Closer, etc. Generally, networks don't kill shows that are very popular; the shows that get canned are shows for which there is relatively limited interest -- no consolation when you're in that small minority, but it isn't reasonable to expect that the networks will invest money in a show that too few viewers are willing to invest their time. It is a two-way street.
Jericho was good for the first half of the first season, and then, quite frankly, my wife and I felt it got pretty bad and never got better. We watched, but I completely understand why so few others watched. I was shocked that CBS renewed it; that seemed an uncharacteristically emotional decision, and not a smart one AFAIC. Shark was okay, but insanely expensive. Dirty Sexy Money was never very good IMHO. My point isn't to trash your preferences, but rather to point out that quality is subjective. There are people who consider Grey's Anatomy far better than all three of these shows. And they're not wrong. They just disagree with you. But more critically, there are more of "them" -- and so mass-market suppliers, like television networks, have to listen to "them" more than to you. It sucks -- it sucks big-time. I know. However, I don't see much alternative for the networks. For them to operate any differently would be irresponsible, at this point.
The long hiatuses between series on cable is a direct reflection of costs versus benefits. What I think is really necessary is a scuttling of the cost structure. All this stuff you see, these days, with the fighting between the unions and the production companies, and between the unions, and within the unions, is all a reflection of railing against this logical progression. Television shows simply need to be less expensive to produce. The networks need to be able to get 39 episodes for what they're currently paying for 24 episodes; they need to be able to order six episodes at a time, so that they aren't paying for seven or more episodes that the public is simply not interested in watching. And each six episode order should be closed-end... the leaving of threads hanging is the fault of the producers and writers, not the networks necessarily. If the production companies would write closed-end six episode blocks, then we viewers would have closure much more often.
If such structural changes happen, then some of your concerns in this regard may end up being addressed.
However, there is another issue here: The fact is that short (six to eight episode) series, with no intention for renewal, tend to be of substantially higher quality than series that are intended to last for a long period of time. The UK, especially, has recognized the value of the short-run series. The problem in the US, though, is as I alluded to above: Cost. The cost of ramping up for a series, due to the expectation for feature-film-quality production values for pilots, is too high. What is needed is for viewers to reduce their expectations for eye candy, and in return we may be able to expect to see higher quality in terms of entertainment value. Note that there is comparatively no ramp-up cost for writing, for direction, or for acting. That ramp-up cost is all associated with art direction, special effects design, set design, costume design, and especially licensing and producer credits. Substantially reduce those costs and networks will be able to afford more of those high-quality short-run series. Again, it works in the UK.
Spring 2009 TV Shows Premiere Dates
). i'm still coolin my jets waiting to see if army wives will return.
