Someone explain this to me (TV Shows/Networks)

A lot of us say "why do all the good shows get cancelled while the shitty ones stay on the air for years and years?"

I've given a lot of thought to this, as much thought as I give anything on TV anyway, and I've noticed something. Yes, I'm sure many of you would give the quick answer of "TV Execs are stupid" but I'm not convinced that things are entirely the fault of the TV Networks.

I just finished watching my DVD Set of Firefly, by Joss Wheadon. Amazing show. Really well written, cool characters, and an interesting premise/back story. Cancelled by FOX after only 13 episodes, nevermind that Wheadon has pumped out 7+ seasons of Buffy and 5-6 seasons of Angel. You would think a guy like that would have some credibility that he can write some good and popular shit right? I remember reading that they kept asking him things like "why does it have to take place in space?" (sound familiar?)

Then it occurred to me. Buffy and Angel were on WB network. Firefly was on FOX.

Other crap TV shows that seem to air forever, like Andromeda (yea I know there are a few fans of this on this site, but even you have said how bad its gotten lately) also air on these other networks like WB and WGN.

So I guess the question is, if you are a guy like Joss Wheadon, and you have a new TV show you want to do, you have had 13+ years of success with WB, why do you go on another network like FOX where unless your show is either a HUGE success like 24 or a "Reality TV Show" (or "shit tv" as I call them) it will get cancelled after one season. You dont have to be a genious to figure this out. Good shows on the main networks WILL NOT SURVIVE. So why even bother? Why didn't he take Firefly to WB or WGN or one of those networks he could have, and been on the air as long as he needed and have had another huge cult success on his hands?

Can someone explain this to me? I really dont get it. I would think that even folks like JMS or WB or whatever should have been marketing B5:Rangers on WB Network on WGN instead of not-really-scifi channel.

For that matter...why couldn't Wheadon try to re-market/sell Firefly to one of these other networks instead of letting it die. And by die, I mean die as a series, I do realize there is a movie in post-production already that is due out this year.

Thoughts?

Firstly, Joss may not have had the choice to take it to the WB. They may not have liked it. Who knows on this one. Plus the WB were very bitter with Fox over the whole Buffy fiasco, so I woundn't understimate the negative feeling at the WB.

The thing is, I think there's a certain level of viewership that a network will receive. It's fair to say, for example, that regardless of quality Fox will get more ratings than the WB because that's the way it has been, and will be for quite some time. Sure shows can start to edge up, and this isn't a hard rule, but as a generilisation it turns out to be true.

So if Firefly had gone on to the WB, it's no sure that it'd have even done as well as it did on Fox. So it may still have been bad by WB's standards. Add to that, there's the gearing of the demos of the network. Firefly may just not have done well on the WB due to demos.

That's not saying your comments are wrong though. Fox is, I think, one of the most cancel-happy networks. The WB can be more patient when it wants to.

In terms of shitty TV doing well.. this is a bit harder to judge. Firstly, who is to say what's shitty? I think it's fair to say that most people at this messageboard have quite an epicentre of TV they like. Babylon 5 of course, but also 24, Buffy, Angel, Farscape, Alias... and I think there's one connection between them: they all require patience and time.

Not everyone is as fanatical as sci-fi fans, and I think a lot of TV which you call crap (like Andromeda) is actually just uncomplicated. And we like complicated!

Uncomplicated TV allows people to tune in when they like, and out of order too. Stargate SG-1 is a good example. It's not dumb TV, but then it's also not going to challenge you either. Remember, Bonnie Hammer's husband can watch it.

I think there are signs that TV that does require concentration beyond one week is taking hold. Desperate Housewives for one. Lost is sort of another, although that's not too arc-driven. But even then, I wouldn't call Desperate Housewives complicated TV.

So in summary, I think some TV just doesn't take hold because many people don't like it. I think Firefly was one of them. I think others are just complicated, or require commitment. And in that vaccuum, a lot of uncomplicated TV and/or TV that doesn't require commitment takes hold.

And as sci-fi fans, we see uncomplicated as crap really.

But yeah, networks like Fox are cancel happy. Bastards.

... and I think there's one connection between them: they all require patience and time.

Not everyone is as fanatical as sci-fi fans, and I think a lot of TV which you call crap (like Andromeda) is actually just uncomplicated. And we like complicated!

Click to expand...

You took the words right out of my mouth... That's not very sanitary! Seriously, for something to be a big hit, it has to appeal to simple people too, not just the intelligent, geeks, or literary people. Ever heard the term "lowest common denominator," well, that's what networks aim for most of the time, and that's where most of the big hits are.

A lot of us say "why do all the good shows get cancelled while the shitty ones stay on the air for years and years?"

I've given a lot of thought to this, as much thought as I give anything on TV anyway, and I've noticed something. Yes, I'm sure many of you would give the quick answer of "TV Execs are stupid" but I'm not convinced that things are entirely the fault of the TV Networks.

I just finished watching my DVD Set of Firefly, by Joss Wheadon. Amazing show. Really well written, cool characters, and an interesting premise/back story. Cancelled by FOX after only 13 episodes, nevermind that Wheadon has pumped out 7+ seasons of Buffy and 5-6 seasons of Angel. You would think a guy like that would have some credibility that he can write some good and popular shit right? I remember reading that they kept asking him things like "why does it have to take place in space?" (sound familiar?)

Click to expand...

Also, it seems that even if you have a proven track record of writing shows that are good and popular, you start from square 1 with your new show, and are second guessed like they've forgotten all of your past successes (unless you're a "name" writer like David E. Kelley, and even then you can be cancelled very quickly, e.g. "Girls Club" on FOX).

Then it occurred to me. Buffy and Angel were on WB network. Firefly was on FOX.

Click to expand...

Well, FOX is a problem, but I think it's more than that. Look at Sci-Fi, B5, Crusade and then Legend of the Rangers, and the "too science fictiony" comment regarding "Polaris."

Other crap TV shows that seem to air forever, like Andromeda (yea I know there are a few fans of this on this site, but even you have said how bad its gotten lately) also air on these other networks like WB and WGN.

So I guess the question is, if you are a guy like Joss Wheadon, and you have a new TV show you want to do, you have had 13+ years of success with WB, why do you go on another network like FOX where unless your show is either a HUGE success like 24 or a "Reality TV Show" (or "shit tv" as I call them) it will get cancelled after one season.

Click to expand...

If you even get one season. Joss got 13/22nd's of a season. Tim Minear only got 4/22nd's aired of Wonderfalls (13 filmed). Keen Eddie only went 13 episodes (7 aired on FOX). I could go on and on......

Answer: The other networks weren't interested in the show?

You dont have to be a genious to figure this out. Good shows on the main networks WILL NOT SURVIVE. So why even bother?

Click to expand...

Well, some good shows on the main networks do survive. There has to be a magical combination of good writing, quality actors who are liked by the mainstream, good press, good word of mouth and good luck.

Also, FOX is not a "main network." Sure they're "broadcast," but they're definitely second string.

Why didn't he take Firefly to WB or WGN or one of those networks he could have, and been on the air as long as he needed and have had another huge cult success on his hands?

Click to expand...

He probably did and they weren't interested.

Can someone explain this to me? I really dont get it. I would think that even folks like JMS or WB or whatever should have been marketing B5:Rangers on WB Network on WGN instead of not-really-scifi channel.

Click to expand...

WB has the disadvantage of having a grudge against B5 due to PTEN.

WGN is too small to afford a new show (e.g. new episodes of Crusade, B5:Rangers, or Firefly). Heck, Firefly cost $2 Million per episode.

For that matter...why couldn't Wheadon try to re-market/sell Firefly to one of these other networks instead of letting it die. And by die, I mean die as a series, I do realize there is a movie in post-production already that is due out this year.

Click to expand...

IIRC, he did try to take it to those other networks. Evidently, they weren't interested. (I may be thinking of Minear and Wonderfalls, here. ) Possibly, they were put off by the per episode costs, and possibly because it had the stain of being a "failed series."

As KoshN said, Joss did try to shop it around.

But at the end of the day, if it's not getting the ratings on one network then it probably won't get them on another network. Sure, some shows have lived on that way (very few mind you). But networks can't afford to just be nice to shows all the time.

I think also there is only a chance if a show shows potential in one area: i.e. strong in a particular demo.

But take Firefly. Some people act like it's great... personally, I never liked it much. But opinions on its content aside, did it ever show anything good? It didn't get high premiere ratings, it didn't get high episode ratings, and it wasn't strong in demos. Moreover, it was way down on the network's numbers over the previous years.

So okay it may have some fans, but can you blame a network for wanting to ditch it? That Joss had success with Buffy and Angel is of no consequence to Fox; it doesn't help them and wouldn't the fans from those shows have tuned in initally? And okay the show may pick up ratings at some point, but will they grow enough for the show to be viable? Well, no, it'd be near-impossible.

But there is that real danger, which has happened with Fox on Fridays in particular, that people tune out. They see a lot of cancellations in one area, so they expect it'll happen again and don't attach to a new show. So networks really need to think about stability, as lack of stability may be their worst enemy.

I imagine Fox would like to turn back time and un-cancel Dark Angel. They weren't going to even commission Firefly (well, maybe as a mid-season) but they gave it a chance at the last minute and ditched Dark Angel. So actually you could say Fox's crime here was giving a show a chance! But they shouldn't have cancelled Dark Angel, when they did they wrote off Fridays.

And now no network is really doing well on Friday. Fridays and Saturdays are dead days for US TV.

It didn't get high premiere ratings....

Click to expand...

I know we'll never know, but I wonder how Firefly would have done had Fox actually shown the pilot first instead of last, and shown the rest of the episodes in order as their were intended.

Firstly, Joss may not have had the choice to take it to the WB. They may not have liked it. Who knows on this one. Plus the WB were very bitter with Fox over the whole Buffy fiasco, so I woundn't understimate the negative feeling at the WB.

Click to expand...

Plus, maybe FOX (the TV network) had exclusive dibs on any Firefly TV project for some period of time, and maybe FOX Network wouldn't let it go?

See also:
http://www.jossisahottie.com/firefly/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=1

History: Dead in the Water: Post-Cancellation

On December 13, 2002 Tim Minear announced at Buffistas.org that FOX would be ordering no new episodes of Firefly. Later that same day, Joss Whedon announced that 20th Century Fox Television had indicated to him that they would be willing to air the show on networks other than their sibling company. Fans wrote to other networks including the Sci Fi Channel and UPN encouraging them to pick up Firefly. They raised enough money to send packages including tapes of the episode "Ariel" to reviewers at major news outlets across the United States. On December 20, 2002, fans across the country held viewing parties to watch "Serenity," the original pilot and last aired episode of Firefly. Fans ate star Nathan Fillion's famous 7-layer bean dip and wrote hundreds of postcards to UPN. In January 2003, Firefly: Immediate Assistance received news from Mutant Enemy that no networks had expressed interest in the show and that there was nothing more fans could do at that time to keep the show on the air. With this in mind, fans directed their efforts towards Fox Home Entertainment, hoping for a DVD release of the season including previously unaired episodes.

The thing is, I think there's a certain level of viewership that a network will receive. It's fair to say, for example, that regardless of quality Fox will get more ratings than the WB because that's the way it has been, and will be for quite some time. Sure shows can start to edge up, and this isn't a hard rule, but as a generilisation it turns out to be true.

Click to expand...

Well, FOX Network gets higher Nielsen numbers overall than The WB. Just as an example of the ratings each network usually gets (This was the last time I checked such numbers.)

Overall for the nights that "Wonderfalls" aired, FOX, The WB and UPN got the
following average numbers:

FOX: 3.0 / 5
UPN: 2.3 / 4 (2.34 / 4)
WB: 2.3 / 4 (2.30 / 4)

So if Firefly had gone on to the WB, it's no sure that it'd have even done as well as it did on Fox. So it may still have been bad by WB's standards. Add to that, there's the gearing of the demos of the network. Firefly may just not have done well on the WB due to demos.

Click to expand...

And it probably would not have done well enough to justify the $2 Million per episode costs.

That's not saying your comments are wrong though. Fox is, I think, one of the most cancel-happy networks.

Click to expand...

Understatement of the century.

Uncomplicated TV allows people to tune in when they like, and out of order too. Stargate SG-1 is a good example. It's not dumb TV, but then it's also not going to challenge you either.

Click to expand...

True.

Remember, Bonnie Hammer's husband can watch it.

Click to expand...

Where's you see that?

So in summary, I think some TV just doesn't take hold because many people don't like it. I think Firefly was one of them. I think others are just complicated, or require commitment. And in that vaccuum, a lot of uncomplicated TV and/or TV that doesn't require commitment takes hold.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people were initially put off by Firefly's odd combination of western and sci-fi.

And as sci-fi fans, we see uncomplicated as crap really.

Click to expand...

Well, except for Stargate SG-1.

But yeah, networks like Fox are cancel happy. Bastards.

Click to expand...

You'll get no disagreement from me on that one!

Some of it has to do with what makes a quality tv show. Often times a good tv show is quite different from other shows currently running and those take time to develop an audience. For a non-scifi example look at Seinfeld. When Seinfeld first started it really was a cult show flying under the radar. Barely enough people got it right away to keep it on the air at first. Eventually the people who got it right away convinced others to give it a chance through word of mouth. Perhaps these people were thrown off by the quirks(and somewhat lower quality) at first but gave the show more time because they had a friend who told them it would be worth the effort. Eventually you get used to the oddity and start to enjoy the show for what it is.

There does seem to be more impatience now because of reality tv. Because shock value and gimicks are so essential to reality tv you pretty much know right away if you've got a success on your hands. They're also so cheap to produce that you can just throw crap at the wall until you get enough to stick to fill out a lineup.

I imagine Fox would like to turn back time and un-cancel Dark Angel. They weren't going to even commission Firefly (well, maybe as a mid-season) but they gave it a chance at the last minute and ditched Dark Angel. So actually you could say Fox's crime here was giving a show a chance! But they shouldn't have cancelled Dark Angel, when they did they wrote off Fridays.

Click to expand...

It may still be possible to resurrect Dark Angel. The only difficult to replace people are Jessica Alba and the creators.

Putting a two-year gap in the story would not be difficult and the fighting in Iraq may have given the writers some new ideas.

Antony,

Your ratings argument would be an accurate one of all things were equal. But if I remember correctly, didn't the show start off with a shit-slot of Friday Night? And didn't it start in a shitty slot because FOX decided they didnt like the fact the show took place in space and sort of black-balled it before it even hit the air? The show was set up for failure.

Which brings me back to my point as to why in the FIRST PLACE do you take a show like that to a network like FOX who is cancel happy and a reality TV whore.

The show itself, I have finally gotten done watching. The writing was great, characters entertaining, the scripts are fun and it had a building story arc that was becoming more and more apparent. If it would have started on another network I am certain it would have gotten good enough ratings to continue. But the fact is FOX set it up to fail before it hit the air because they decided it wasn't their type of show (which begs the question of why did they bother in the first place).

Thats the sort of thing that just never makes sense to me...

I seem to remember a new Sci Fi series called Babylon 5 that was not terribly popular during a large prtion of it's first season......odd looking aliens, marginal cast chemistry....etc, etc.....imagine if B5 had gotten the same backhanded effort that Firefly got.....we might never had seen a season 2 much less a season 5......Space drama is a tough sell to any network......

......and Fox is quite obviously focused on "easy" sells like "worlds worst auto accidents" and such......Firefly needed a REAL Sci Fi channel or one of the big three to take it seriously.

Very few "classic" tv series hit any kind of real popularity or stride during season 1, maybe West Wing, a few others, but usually casting, character "molds", and arc development take longer than that ......how many episodes was Firefly given???........

.......No, I don't think there is a legitimate defense for how many series are killed early. It's a slash and burn mentality driving current tv programming and it is reflected in the Bachelor, Bachelorette, The Swan, The Simple Life, The Osbournes, Survivor, Extreme Makeover, The Biggest Loser, The Apprentice.....I can go on and on and on
AND ON..........

........it's soap opera for prime time and it is shock tv and it has spoiled tv execs. How many prime time, well advertised Sci Fi shows have there been....cept for the Trek saga......?? can it be counted on one hand?? Firefly was wiped cuz it is Sci Fi AND because only 1 in 5, maybe 1 in 7 good shows are given even 1 FULL SEASON anymore. (my personal loss, Harsh Realm.....another partial first season with good potential.......)


It IS the execs. And in this attitude, most if not all the networks are freighteningly similar. As long as the decisions are driven by money and money alone you will see flavors of cheap, dumb, artifical drama.....I'm sure the model for current prime time tv being something like Jerry Springer....I'm amazed it took them so long to try it out on prime time........

"Reality TV Show" (or "shit tv" as I call them)

Click to expand...

You're not the only one calling them that.......

But take Firefly. Some people act like it's great... personally, I never liked it much. But opinions on its content aside, did it ever show anything good? It didn't get high premiere ratings, it didn't get high episode ratings, and it wasn't strong in demos. Moreover, it was way down on the network's numbers over the previous years.

So okay it may have some fans, but can you blame a network for wanting to ditch it?

Click to expand...

Well, FOX did sabotage it by putting it on Friday nights, and airing the pilot last. Then, there were the preemptions by baseball.

But there is that real danger, which has happened with Fox on Fridays in particular, that people tune out. They see a lot of cancellations in one area, so they expect it'll happen again and don't attach to a new show. So networks really need to think about stability, as lack of stability may be their worst enemy.

Click to expand...

And FOX is too stupid to realize this.

I imagine Fox would like to turn back time and un-cancel Dark Angel. They weren't going to even commission Firefly (well, maybe as a mid-season) but they gave it a chance at the last minute and ditched Dark Angel. So actually you could say Fox's crime here was giving a show a chance!

Click to expand...

Well, technically, they give lots of shows a chance, for about two seconds, on an infamously bad night. They just don't give shows much of a chance, like when they moved Wonderfalls across from CSI, The Apprentice, and Kingdom Hospital, for one night before cancelling it. That's the equivalent giving a show the short sword and having them disembowel themselves.

But they shouldn't have cancelled Dark Angel, when they did they wrote off Fridays.

Click to expand...

Fox Fridays were dead long before Dark Angel got cancelled. What was the last thing on FOX that did well on Friday nights, The X-Files (which they moved to Sunday nights)?

And now no network is really doing well on Friday. Fridays and Saturdays are dead days for US TV.

Click to expand...

Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays I watch zero TV. dr. vegas was the last thing I watched on Fridays, and it died after 5 episodes.

...how many episodes was Firefly given?

Click to expand...

If the two-part pilot is counted as one episode, fourteen were produced; eleven aired.

Here's the intended order of the Firefly episodes as per the DVD set.

Serenity
The Train Job*
Bushwacked
Shindig
Safe
Our Mrs Reynolds
Jaynestown
Out Of Gas
Ariel
War Stories
Trash
The Message
Heart Of Gold
Objects In Space

Reorganizing that list into the order that the episodes were broadcast given the info on the back of the DVD boxes and we get:

The Train Job*
Bushwacked
Our Mrs Reynolds
Jaynestown
Out Of Gas
Shindig
Safe
Ariel
War Stories
Objects In Space
Serenity

*Note: If I recall correctly, The Train Job was only created out of Joss and Tim having been told by Fox that Fox wanted a different, more action-oriented episode for the first episode, so Joss and Tim had to very quickly make a new single-length episode that fit what Fox told them they wanted and could in some manner serve as a pilot to introduce characters. As such, I wonder if the episode would have ever been made.

I seem to remember a new Sci Fi series called Babylon 5 that was not terribly popular during a large prtion of it's first season......odd looking aliens, marginal cast chemistry....etc, etc.....imagine if B5 had gotten the same backhanded effort that Firefly got.....we might never had seen a season 2 much less a season 5......

Click to expand...

"Might never" have seen a season 2 much less a season 5? No "might" about it. That's a certainty. Hell, if B5 had aired on FOX, we'd probably have gotten "Midnight on the Firing Line" thru "Born to the Purple," and then they'd have shown "The Gathering" last, before cancelling the show.

Space drama is a tough sell to any network......
......and Fox is quite obviously focused on "easy" sells like "worlds worst auto accidents" and such......Firefly needed a REAL Sci Fi channel or one of the big three to take it seriously.

Click to expand...

WE need a REAL Sci-Fi Channel.

......how many episodes was Firefly given???........

Click to expand...

10 episodes plus the pilot.

Proper Order (on the DVD Set)
1. 1-11 1AGE79 20 Dec 02 Serenity (1)
2. 1-12 1AGE79 20 Dec 02 Serenity (2)
3. 1- 1 1AGE01 20 Sep 02 The Train Job
4. 1- 2 1AGE02 27 Sep 02 Bushwhacked
5. 1- 6 1AGE03 1 Nov 02 Shindig
6. 1- 7 1AGE04 8 Nov 02 Safe
7. 1- 3 1AGE05 4 Oct 02 Our Mrs. Reynolds
8. 1- 4 1AGE06 18 Oct 02 Jaynestown
9. 1- 5 1AGE07 25 Oct 02 Out of Gas
10. 1- 8 1AGE08 15 Nov 02 Ariel
11. 1- 9 1AGE09 6 Dec 02 War Stories
12. 1-14 1AGE12 UNAIRED Trash
13. 1-15 1AGE13 UNAIRED The Message
14. 1-13 1AGE10 UNAIRED Heart of Gold
15. 1-10 1AGE11 13 Dec 02 Objects in Space

FOX's Airing Order
3. 1- 1 1AGE01 20 Sep 02 The Train Job
4. 1- 2 1AGE02 27 Sep 02 Bushwhacked
7. 1- 3 1AGE05 4 Oct 02 Our Mrs. Reynolds
8. 1- 4 1AGE06 18 Oct 02 Jaynestown
9. 1- 5 1AGE07 25 Oct 02 Out of Gas
5. 1- 6 1AGE03 1 Nov 02 Shindig
6. 1- 7 1AGE04 8 Nov 02 Safe
10. 1- 8 1AGE08 15 Nov 02 Ariel
11. 1- 9 1AGE09 6 Dec 02 War Stories
15. 1-10 1AGE11 13 Dec 02 Objects in Space
1. 1-11 1AGE79 20 Dec 02 Serenity (1)
2. 1-12 1AGE79 20 Dec 02 Serenity (2)

Note how badly screwed up FOX's airing order was.

It IS the execs. And in this attitude, most if not all the networks are freighteningly similar. As long as the decisions are driven by money and money alone you will see flavors of cheap, dumb, artifical drama.....

Click to expand...

And that's why I am watching less and less TV every year.

"Reality TV Show" (or "shit tv" as I call them)

Click to expand...

You're not the only one calling them that.......

Click to expand...

Indeed!

[wonders if KoshN saw his post with the airing order/intended order before he posted the list too]

[wonders if KoshN saw his post with the airing order/intended order before he posted the list too]

Click to expand...

Nope. Those two passed in the night, and mine's better because the numbering makes the FOX airing order look so very wrong.

Isn't a fact that the audience have a large part on this stupidity?
After all, is the ratings that count.

There are major screwed ups like Fox/Firefly and TNT/Crusade, but all this shitty/tv, that we talk about, is not a demand from the audience?

Or are the TV execs that come up with an idea (mostly cheap and easy) and then make the audience swallow it until it gets used with the idea and becomes a popular show?
(BTW, this is what happened in my country)

Almir

Frankly, I think it's hopeless and inevitably aggravating to look to TV- any channel- for a solid series that engages an audiences' attention consistently. TV is constantly competing with relatively new entertainment distractions, all of which are based on the principle of brief attention-grabbing fare which we can let go at will, like video games and DVDs. The only series with "arcs" and characters that have room to breathe capture all-young-female audiences (Sex & the City, Desperate Housewives, The Gillmore Girls) because they generally aren't into the many different things we are.

This is also why reality TV is so big. You don't need to have been following Wife Swap to "enjoy" the new episode between rounds of Halo 2. And with the continuing popularity of DVRs, networks have less and less to gain by drawing viewers in every week at the same time. It is therefore no surprise that the strongest series (Sopranos, Deadwood) are on pay cable: no ads, but people will keep their subscriptions to keep up with their favorite shows.

Network TV now is just the place where we tune in for a couple of minutes of watching some skinny blonde chick eat snake shit or get dumped by some jerk or both, before popping in your latest Netflix DVD unless your woman chases you out of the room so that she and her girlfriends can watch Teri Hatcher and her TV friends whore it up.

I see it as several fold.

First and foremost, Reality TV is cheap, it doesn't matter so much if it doesn't rack in the ratings.
Second, the Pilot needs to be seen and really needs to hook people if it's a complicated Arc-Driven project. If the Pilot is missed it will turn potential viewers off, since they won't know what's going on in the second episode. 2 Hour Pilots have a better chance, as there is more setup time available, but, even so, for a really involved series, such as Babylon 5, it's still very difficult to setup the series in just a Pilot. For those of us who drool for Genre TV, such as Scifi, we will look at a Pilot like this differently than the average tv veiwer. We will look at the potential to come, most will judge it just on what they see in that Pilot episode. So, even word of mouth isn't always helpful for a complex Arc-Driven project.
If it's not a night when you typically are in front of the TV looking for something new to watch, you aren't likely to make the night available for that show, if it doesn't really grab you.

It's difficult enough to make a really complex series like Babylon 5 appealing to the the masses at large by the end of the first season, let alone just with a Pilot.

The American audience doesn't expect to have to be completely dedicated to a series in order to watch it.