I can understand canceling a ...
Question: I can understand canceling a bad show, one that critics think is horrible and no one watches, but how can a network cancel one of its two shows that actually wins awards? Every person I know who has actually sat down to watch
Arrested Development thinks it's hilarious. Shouldn't Fox try its hardest to get an audience for the show?
Answer: While I do wish Fox had at least temporarily tried putting
Arrested between
The Simpsons and
Family Guy on Sundays to see how the show would play in a much more protected hammock, I can't fault Fox in the larger picture for not at least giving the show a chance. The show was renewed twice, regardless of the scheduling and the erratic airing of episodes. The question isn't so much what Fox could have done to try to build the audience but rather what a network's ratings expectations are anymore for shows that attempt something different. If buzz and acclaim were enough,
Arrested Development would be set for life. Sadly, it isn't.
For a different perspective, here's this from Richard C.: "OK, enough with the Fox bashing — someone needs to give a little love to Fox. Yes, they screwed the viewers with Firefly and Wonderfalls, but at least those series got to see the light of day for a few episodes, and we got 13 episodes of each (and some closure) on the DVDs. Would these series have been seen at all on any other network? And it's not just Fox — does anyone remember Eyes, Karen Sisco and scores of others that got bungled by other networks? It's the nature of the beast. The bottom line is that most of my appointment television is on Fox or its sister network, FX. Will these shows and the viewers eventually get screwed? Yes — because that's what TV executives do. So enjoy them while you can and stop complaining."
