Primetime Pilot Panic: ABC Axes ‘Sam’

COMMENTS (43)

• Samantha Who? had everything going for it but the writing. Great premise, likable cast, gifted comic actors…

  But it just wasn’t funny.

  The reason sitcoms are dead is because networks keep populating their airwaves with shows like this, that are all post-modern irony, and sometimes even whimsy, but no actual comedy. There needs to be at least one writer on every staff who knows how to write sketch and, yes, jokes.

  Comment by Comedy Fan — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:04pm PDT  Reply to this post

• It may have been considered a hit, but it was only a timeslot hit. Its numbers were completely a result of following Dancing with Stars–and it actually had horrible retention from that show. It’s no surprise that it bombed as soon as it was on its own. I mean, when was the last time you called someone and they said “I can’t talk. Samantha Who? is on!”

  Comment by M — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:18pm PDT  Reply to this post

• A huge f***-up by ABC. This was the ONLY new hit of two years ago, and ABC completely bungled it by constantly putting in on, and then pulling it off, the schedule. The writers’ strike didn’t help, but you can’t develop an audience like that. ABC killed a perfectly viable show.

  Comment by fan — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:38pm PDT  Reply to this post

• @Comedy Fan

  Well said about “post-modern irony.” These single camera “comedies” with their meta-viewpoint – look at us we’re being ironic – don’t work because there’s no comedy and no characters to invest in.

  Sitcoms aren’t dead. It’s a classic format that audiences miss. It’s perplexing because it seems networks simply decided to hold the funeral but nothing died. Most shows do fail, so wiping out the whole genre makes no sense. As an example, HIMYM is not a fluke as some say. It’s well written so it works.

  Comment by Lucy — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:42pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I agree with Comedy Fan’s comment. The show had great actors and a premise with loads of potential to get laughs. But they needed some better writers. I agree that sketch writers can deliver the funny without trying to be too funny or cliche. Unfortunately in H-wood it seems alot of people get hired onto these shows by “who they know” and not based on their writing talent.

  Comment by bulldozer — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:42pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Sorry but when I read comments from Bulldozer and others that this show and other shows need “better writers’ I want to scream – it just shows they have NO IDEA what happens behind the scenes – ANY writer on ANY show is noted to DEATH but corporate suits – every story outline, every little thing is second-guessed and questioned by non-writers and so much good stuff is thrown out. Anything that might be daring or risky is cut – everyone is almost always guided to be pedestrian and likeable. And comedy cant be done this way – comedy by committee is putrid. Until the business side stops truly interfering with the writing of a show – this will keep happening.

  Comment by violentgum — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 2:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Sitcoms are dead. Hard to sell into syndication as well lately. Problem with the writers working on these shows is that they have no real skills anymore; most are hired because they are friends with the showrunners. Most sitcom writers are forced to be hired by the agencies who rep the showrunners, sad but true. Broder, Kurland was a great at that. Endeavor is great at that. As well, most fail on one show that got cancelled and then just slide over to the next one and fail there……Hire some new blood.

  Gone are the days of Cheers, Frasier, Family Ties, Cosby, Night Court. Most of today’s sitcom writers have never even heard of those shows. I was teaching a course at USC in a writing class and no one knew what Cheers was. No one knew who Ralph Mouth was. Scary….

  Where is Brandon Tartikoff when you need him?

  Comment by Phil Dale Duckie — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 2:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The mother was great. Ah well.

  Comment by Astral Weeks — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 2:23pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Unreal. All ABC wanted this pilot season was a female-driven companion piece for their hit show Sam Who? Well done, ABC. You’ve destroyed your only hit comedy in the last 2 years….

  Comment by Writer — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:11pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I’m convinced that ABC is manned by spies from rival networks. How else to explain the axing of potential great shows like Pushing Daisies, Dirty Sexy Money, Eli Stone, Samantha Who, The Unusuals, Life on Mars – and that is just this season!

  I sure am glad I don’t own Disney stock. I like to invest in companies whose executive know what the hell they’re doing.

  Comment by JD — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:16pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I won’t debate much of what has been said here, except to add that the premise was unsustainable. The networks are picking up series like they’re movies, with big premises that they can promote, but the amnesia premise simply could not sustain season after season. And without that premise, there were no interesting characters. Christina Applegate managed to hoist the show entirely on her own charm, but even that can only get you so far.

  Comment by Samantha What? — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Why are so many sitcoms pitched at young people when the average TV viewer is 45+?

  Comment by Santayana — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:32pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The reason the show failed is for one reason only. DONALD TODD. Has anyone else noticed that he can not write nor can he produce. He is not liked by anyone in the business that actually does have talent. A different show runner would have meant a better show. They should have canned him when they wanted to, right after they shot the pilot. How he stayed on it as long as they let him is beyond me.

  Comment by Veronica — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Seems right to me.

  Christina Applegate’s last sitcom lasted 1+ season, and that was following FRIENDS and produced by the same people.

  Maybe she just topped out at 19, on MARRIED WITH CHILDREN, and the rest of the world noticed except for the TV studios.

  Comment by MrJeff — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 4:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Santayana, the reason shows are pitched to younger people is because that’s the age advertisers covet. Why? Because at that age, they feel the consumer is malleable, unlike middle-aged/seniors who are set in their ways. A 50 year-old woman is probably sticking with the same shampoo she’s used most of her life.

  The thinking is, get ‘em while they’re young and you’ll have a customer for life. That’s why a show with a lower overall rating, but one that scores higher with a younger demo, is more valuable to them than a show with a higher rating but older viewership.

  Not saying it should be that way, but that’s the way network TV execs and advertisers think.

  Comment by Dixon Steele — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 4:23pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Irony? You people don’t know what you’re talking about. Samantha Who? was rarely ironic. If anything it was too earnest, which hurt the comedy, but gave it heart. On a network mainly watched by women, heart is important.

  Sketch writers? 30 Rock has very sketchy writing and no one watches them outside of New York and LA. You have to write shows with real characters for middle America to embrace them.

  Ratings? Samantha Who? was initially building on the Dancing With The Stars lead-in in key women’s demos before Dancing wrapped up and SW was left to fend for itself. Other shows failed miserably in that slot and only Samantha Who? thrived. The bottom line is ABC had its first comedy hit in about 10 years and they found a way to screw it up. Amazing.

  Seriously, so far this has been a mostly embarrassing string of comments.

  Comment by Apparently Smarter Than You — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 4:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• how is it that Disney axes a perfectly good show and lets their shitty shows on the Disney Channel run on and on. I say we start a petition to ax Hannah Montana before they start shooting their season….

  Comment by mooki — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 4:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Older viewers are seen as less gullible and therefore less receptive to advertising. Instead of working harder to create better ads, the advertising industry simply convinces its clients to write off older viewers.

  Comment by SW — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 5:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Samantha Who was considered a “hit” by the network when the series began airing.”

  Therein lies the problem…

  Comment by michael dobrofsky — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 5:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dixon Steele — that “Brandon Tartikoff” strategy is DOA, though clueless network execs think it still has life.

  Tartikoff knew that he was both riding a youth wave in the 1980′s, and that good times with money burning a whole in the pockets meant premium ad spots.

  There just are not enough young people to make that approach work. Dollhouse or Gossip Girl, get what, 2 million viewers an episode?

  CBS’s comedies, broad and unhip as they may be, seem the only winners.

  If youth orientation ends (I think it will), who will win and lose in Hollywood? I think only the broadly skilled writer/producers will win. I liked Samantha Who? But not enough to tune in week after week.

  Comment by whiskey — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 6:07pm PDT  Reply to this post

• By the way people, to call a show a hit, shouldn’t it have to finish in the top 40 in TV ratings and shares.

  TWO AND HALF MEN……..hit

  SAMANTHA WHO…..not a hit.

  Rules of Engagement is the only other 1/2 hour to finish in the top 20. The rest is reality and 1 hour. Go figure.

  Failed showrunners, hire failed writers, pushed on them by their own agencies, networks have failed shows….

  No one watches 30 Rock or The Office anymore, especially outside of LA, NEW YORK, and Chicago…

  Comment by Phil Dale Duckie — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 6:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Apparently Smarter Than You:

  Go thump your chest elsewhere. You obviously have a dog in the race. Samantha Who stank, and saying it had too much heart is laughable. Comedy Fan was right on. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

  Comment by Embarrassed by you — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 6:39pm PDT  Reply to this post

• “Gone are the days of Cheers, Frasier, Family Ties, Cosby, Night Court. Most of today’s sitcom writers have never even heard of those shows.

  I was teaching a course at USC in a writing class and no one knew what Cheers was. No one knew who Ralph Mouth was. Scary….”

  Jesus FUCKING Christ!

  No wonder the industry is in the damn shape it’s in. On top of the fact (as evidenced by these comments from the “inside”) that the most creative decisions seem to be made by the least creative people….

  …But you’ve got TV writers with no sense of classic TV.

  Shocked but not surprised. You’ve got film students taking film theory courses where they’re seeing classic American and foreign films that they otherwise would’ve never seen.

  But that’s film school culture for ya. Learn the technical stuff now, and maybe watch some “old” movies later…

  Typical. And depressing.

  Comment by Layne — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 6:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I agree with violentgum. Having worked behind the scenes on many sitcoms, I can tell you that the funniest “show”, is usually the Wednesday “network run_through”. Which would mean the live audience show is on a Friday. The run-through is the show that the studio audience on Friday and the TV audience never sees.

  The network run-through is the show before the network “notes”. After everybody put in their two cents the script loses the spark. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

  That said, the writing staffs are usually the same types from show to show. Every TV character has the same sarcastic New York/L.A. personality. We need writers with different backgrounds. Old people, young people, People from Idaho or North Dakota. Latinos black People, Asians. Ban people that grew up in L.A. and the New York Metropolitan area, for a while. BTW I’m from L.A. I’m just sick of the same old stuff. Part of the reason “Napoleon Dynamite”, was funny, was because it was different. The writers were Mormons from Utah.

  Comment by Joe Brown — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Well crap! This show had so many actors I was happy to see again. It could have been fixed.

  Comment by Cat — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:19pm PDT  Reply to this post