• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

FX Network

Recoil

Regular
OK,

So FX Network on cable/satellite is owned by Fox, and is its "Extended Network" for television on cable access. So does anyone other than me wonder why shows that don't make it on Fox broadcast TV, don't get picked up, moved, or given a chance on FX? Shows like Firefly, Drive, Vanished, and dozens of others might have done OK there. FX has some decent shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, but not much beyond that. You would think there would have been some good opportunities in the past with shows Fox didn't like.

Anyone know why this isn't happening or isn't a possibility?
 
When 24 first came out they repeated episodes, which was a really cool way to establish that "extended network" idea.

They're the only non-premium channel that actually has had two shows I follow: Rescue Me and The Shield.

Firefly on FX would be cool, 'cause they could curse in English instead of Chinese.
 
Yeah, I don't trust Fox. They have a new show coming out soon about an immortal guy that looks awesome, but why bother? Unless it gets ratings like "24" and "House" they'll drop it like a hot potato. I'm moving toward that with HBO as well.
 
We also get FX in the UK, and the only show that we ever watch is NCIS. Caught a couple of eps of Carnivale on there too but that's not on at the moment.
 
You can't just "transfer" a show from one network to another, even if they are corporate siblings. Different channels attract different audiences with different demogrphics. (That was part of the reason B5 went to TNT rather than The WB. It wasn't all jealousy between divisions.) They also have different advertising bases and that means different show budgets. There is also the small matter of what the producing studio (which is generally not the same company as the network) wants to do with the show - if anything.

And it is clear that the UK version of F/X has nothing to do with the American one. NCIS is produced for the CBS broadcast network over here, and Carnivale was on either HBO or Showtime - both premium (pay) cable channels. The major dramas on F/X, as far as I can recall, are The Shield, Rescue Me (both great shows), Nip/Tuck (too soap opera for my tastes, but well-produced and well regarded and they have some amazingly hot women guest stars), and The Riches (Eddie Izzard and Minnie Driver, I like both, and it is getting great reviews and great buzz, but I just haven't gotten around to checking it out.)

Regards,

Joe
 
OK,

So FX Network on cable/satellite is owned by Fox, and is its "Extended Network" for television on cable access. So does anyone other than me wonder why shows that don't make it on Fox broadcast TV, don't get picked up, moved, or given a chance on FX? Shows like Firefly, Drive, Vanished, and dozens of others might have done OK there. FX has some decent shows like The Shield and Nip/Tuck, but not much beyond that. You would think there would have been some good opportunities in the past with shows Fox didn't like.

Anyone know why this isn't happening or isn't a possibility?

Well, Firefly cost $2 million/ep., so that on a non-pay cable channel might be too expensive.

It's also possible that FX doesn't want to look like a FOX dumping ground for Fox failures. Personally, I wish Brimstone and Strange Luck could have gone there.
 
In crude numerical terms, if a show that costs X can't find an audience on a broadcast network that reaches 120 million households, what chance does it have of finding an audience (and a big enough one for ad rates to cover a signifcant part of "X") on a cable / satellite channel that is only available to 60 or 70 million? (Everyone doesn't have cable or satellite, and every cable system doesn't offer every cable channel, and finally every cable or sat. subscriber doesn't purchase every "tier" or block of channels offered. So the universe in which any given channel is actually available for people in a given household to watch is always much smaller for any cable or sat. network than that for any major broadcast network, and probably even smaller that that for a netlet like The CW.)

And, again, demographics matter. If you can reliably deliver a million or a million and-a-half males aged 18 to 42 that's worth a lot to certain very specific advertisers, and that can make a show a hit on a "guy oriented" network like F/X. The sub-demographic of women in the same age range to tend to like the same kind of program is smaller, and much smaller than the female demographic at large, but that makes it even more valuable to certain other advertisers. They get more bang for their buck advertising on a show on F/X that gets 1 to 2 million of "their" veiwers than they would by advertising on a network show that gets 20 to 30 million viewer, 99 percent of whom don't buy their products. This is why you don't see a lot of panythose advertised during NFL football games, and someone who makes products aimed primarily at the African-American market is gonig to try to get his ad on during the NBA finals - not the NHL playoffs.

Major broadcast network shows have to be designed to appeal to a broader audience than the one attracted to FoodNetwork or The Sci-Fi Channel or BET. That means a show that is a flop with 3 or 4 million viewers on a network may not work on a cable channel because all but half a million of those viewers might be the "wrong" kind in terms of that channel's particular niche. Again, things aren't as simple as people sometimes imagine. If something so "obvious" as what was suggested in the original post would actually work, they'd probably be doing it..

As often we call TV programmers stupid, especially when they do something we don't like, they actually tend to be fairly smart people who - like all of us - work within the constraints of reality. ("Why don't they put on better shows?" Well, they choose from among the scripts they get and pilots they commission. It isn't like they have a choice between perfection and crap. They often have a choice between total crap and slightly-less-crappy crap. And they have to make a decision on a deadline and get the shows in production by date "Y" and on the air by date "Z".)

The fact is that if someone made a magic wand and made all of us network programmers, there would be only two possible approaches and three possible outcome:

1) We'd do what we all say we would do, keep struggling shows on the air, spend millions to produce "wrap up" TV movies for series no one is watching in the first place, commit to full-season orders up-front and never cancel a show. This would lead to:

a. Our getting fired very quickly
b. Our network going out of business

2) We'd learn the business and start making decisions very much like those of the people we mock. This would lead to:

c. Our becoming the enemy and nothing very much changing.

:)

Regards,

Joe
 
I'll say one good thing about FX. They have given Morgan Spurlock (of Supersize Me) a third season of his interesting documentary program, 30 Days, and it should start before long!
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top