Primetime Pilot Panic: ABC Axes ‘Sam’

COMMENTS (43)

• Sorry, Dixon Steele; whiskey is right, but so are you, and here’s how. You’re correct that young audiences are more attractive to advertisers than old(er) audiences because they haven’t yet become setin their brand choices. But it does no good if they aren’t watching, and they’re not. This phenomenon was first noted, if I recall, when “Gunsmoke,” a top-ten show, was cancelled because its viewers were over 40.

  Yes, older people generally buy things because they need them rather than because they want them, and, therefore, necesseties don’t have to advertise. But they still form a vast audience (60 percent by some counts) that is being purposely disenfranchised. In better economic times, these would be the viewers who would buy luxury items. What’s genuinely needed is for an enterprising sales/marketing agency to bring producers together with this audience by creating shows that serve them, elevating the level of intelligence and social awareness to make TV viewing a stronger part of their lives. And then sell to them. People who bond with TV shows buy things that are advertised on them. People who feel that a show is aimed at someone else will watch, but will disconnect emotionally.

  Once again I feel compelled that film and TV is oneof the most poorly run industries in America. There is no audience cultivation, no long-range corporate planning, content providers are treated like the enemy, and the financial structure is somewhere to the right of “Whoopee.” If Hollywood had wheels it would be the automobile industry.

  Comment by Santayana — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:27pm PDT  Reply to this post

• No one knew who Ralph Mouth was because his name was Ralph Malph, professor.

  Comment by Egad — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Embarrassed and Comedy Fan-

  I didn’t have a horse in this race. Quite the opposite. I work at another network and watched ABC’s bungling of SW? with bewilderment.

  You both come off as bitter failures who post here pretending to know something about this business. Please go back to writing your horrible specs at Starbucks and so I can reject them one day when they come across my desk.

  Comment by Still smarter than you — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If you EVER thought there was ANY merit to Samantha Who (a show never bungled but merely propped up in a protected time slot), you truly epitomize the network exec of today. You are the problem.

  Comment by You're Not Smart At All — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:16pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I know Don Todd and worked for him in the past. He is a VERY good writer and good guy. And I say this after he didn’t hire me on Sam Who.

  The reality is, as a showrunner on a new show, you have limited power against the network that put you on regarding who you hire to write, who you cast, your timeslot, marketing, etc, etc, etc. All the out-of-the-know people trolling around here should remember that.

  Comment by Bro Keeper — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:28pm PDT  Reply to this post

• It failed because there was too much intervention at the network level. Read the pilot and read the last couple of episodes-completely different. They took the edge out of the comedy and parsimoniously served Cool Aid to viewers. Cool Aid isn’t funny but people on the edge are funny given the right situation.

  Suits:
  Don’t assume that because you sit in your office and you see the set as some place where a t-shirt and jeans seems to be the only prerequisite for success, that you can do your job and someone else’s(i.e. writers, directors, crew.. et al). Even though you don’t know one thing about the set. We see you walking in like an insecure deer encircled by a pack of wolves-then experience the humor in your need to overcompensate. Don’t worry, people on the set are not interested in you though, you bore us. We don’t want your job either. You never hear of set people dying to get a suit job, but its heard the other way around quite often. So we say sure. Great note. Let’s find a way to incorporate that into our script. Down deep we think, just go away now. Its a fight we cant win. We know it and you knew it a long time ago but you’ve forgotten. We create by collaborating and you create in the vacuum of your own ego. You feel the need to put your stamp on everything just like my dog does on morning walks. No care taken, just a little splash here and a little there.

  We all have news for you.

  Its not a show that was cancelled, it was your ego.

  Comment by Dont let the suits out — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:32pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Joe Brown:

  One of the first sitcoms I worked on shared BTL crew with another, older show, which means we had to tape Tuesdays because they taped Fridays. Which means, working backwards, that our network run-throughs were on Fridays, giving our cast the entire weekend to forget the script (and the star didn’t exactly have a deep bench in the memory department to begin with).

  Tapings were painful; we were 13 and out.

  Comment by Writer Bob — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 9:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Again, you’re ignorant of the history of that time slot. Every other scripted show has failed there. SW? not only held the lead-in, it built in the demos. You’re just stating opinions. Stick to the facts.

  Comment by Still Smarter — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 10:57pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Concept comedies do not work. End of story.

  Comment by max milton — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 11:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• @ Phil Dale Duckie

  PFFFT I wasn’t even ALIVE when Happy Days was on but at least I know it’s Ralph MALPH. And you’re a professor? Woof.

  Comment by Debbie — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 11:56pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Exactly, You’re Not Smart At All.

  This wasn’t a BAD show, it had its moments, talented actors, but it didn’t have “IT” – it never really made you want to come back for more. You wanted to like it, but it just didn’t have the spark.

  And it was a “hit” because it wasn’t a flop.

  Comment by Bingo — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 6:32am PDT  Reply to this post

• Why is the industry in the dumps? Well, read over some of the posts on this site from people who claim wot work in it. Bitter, angry, frustrated and on and on. It was a decent show, it was entertaining, well acted and well written – at least it employed writers & craftsmen unlike so many shows across the dial. Does everyone feel like they have to validate themselves these days by ripping apart every film or show mentioned here? Try to enjoy something through that gray haze of bitterness. Because someday you’re going to be on a great show and the rug will be pulled out from under you.

  Comment by RPB — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 7:02am PDT  Reply to this post

• Female driven shows are much needed. However, this show is not engaging. Enough of these smug tongue-in-cheek, ironic, shows with little character development, disjointed pacing, and nothing to which viewers connect. Snotty people who work on the show need to restrain the hostile comments, personally insulting those who disagree. It doesn’t make viewers like the show any more, and in fact makes viewers more resentful. People who scream about how smart they are inevitably are the biggest morons.

  Comment by Bottom line — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 10:34am PDT  Reply to this post

• The advertisers constantly look for the 18-49 age demo for reaching out to purchase brands that are the commercials for shows. It is a branding thing and marketing for the age grouping of viewership.

  What advertisers and networks continue to fail to see is that the Over 50′s group and Babyboomers are at least 60% of their overall viewership. These age groups do not always subscribe to buying brands that the commercials talk about during a show. However, the Over 50′s are alot more flexible than the 18-49 age group than the advertisers/networks think they are. There is a hint of change in the Over 50′s grouping, which is good for film/television, overall.

  Babyboomers are living healthier and longer so they comprise the majority of viewership in television, overall. It still remains the Babyboomer Generation.

  The Golden Girls delivered a highly successful show which the show won multiple awards to include all principal cast to win at least 1 Emmy award (Will and Grace and All In the Family are the only 2 others to share the record) so the networks should always think in terms of what would sell and work, and not necessarily focus on one age grouping or another.

  Diversity of shows, to include all age groupings, need to be considered when making decisions on what to air in the Fall or Spring skeds.

  Networks only have to look back in history and see what worked and what did not work and search for shows that have current themes and mindsets to combine for a great long running series.

  Networks are having problems with stick-to-itivenss and cultivation and growing a series, giving it time to develop and find an audience base to hang in there with them for the long run of it.

  I wish that I were in there in those meetings to tell these network executives and managers what the people/viewers really want to include all age groupings too.

  I am sorry about Samantha Who.

  Comment by LindaTNo1 — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 11:30am PDT  Reply to this post

• Oh, Professor Laaaaaaaayne. Go sit in the corner and wear a pointy hat.

  Dumbass.

  Comment by taxPAYER — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 12:15pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Don Todd ran the show that had basically been written for him from Cecilia Ahern’s book with these characters then destroyed it. McPherson wanted him gone before they even picked up the pilot. Its why they took him off UGLY BETTY before he could ruin it. He doesn’t write well and certainly does not have a unique vision for TV

  Comment by Josh — Tuesday May 19, 2009 @ 4:08pm PDT  Reply to this post

• the writing on this show stunk. it just stunk. no two ways about it. the cast sold it though. especially melissa mccarthy and jennifer esposito. they were so funny together week after week. they should spin them off. applegate’s mugging got a little tired after awhile and they never had enough of the truly amazing jean smart. odd choice for abc to can though given it’s female appeal.

  Comment by Jason — Wednesday May 20, 2009 @ 3:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• I probably should stay out of this sort of thing, lest I put my foot in my malph, but regarding the comment by “Josh” that I was removed from Ugly Betty before I could ruin it, I just have to take exception. Thirteen episodes is plenty of time to ruin a show; indeed, comments elsewhere in this forum have pointed out that I ruined Samantha Who? after only one. That I only worked on Ugly Betty two days a week (three when I could sneak back onto the lot) slowed me up a bit, sure, but the fact that Ugly Betty thrived despite my efforts is a testament to its now-obvious imperviousness to attacks, from within and without. Oh, and regarding the Cecelia Ahern book I adapted and destroyed: I don’t recall there being a book. What was the name again?

  Comment by Donald Todd — Wednesday May 20, 2009 @ 1:44pm PDT  Reply to this post