
It was hyped more than a heavyweight championship match, and the broadcast networks’ first ratings face-off last night didn’t disappoint. There was no clear winner but there was a big flop, Fox’s new drama Lone Star, and, as we know, there is nothing Hollywood relishes more than a failure. Lone Star was given the strongest possible drama lead-in on Fox with House as well as the lion share of the network’s fall marketing dollars. It also received mostly glowing reviews. So how come it drew premiere numbers that wouldn’t even pass muster at a top cable network (4.1 million viewers and a 1.3/3 in adults 18-49)? It held on to less than a third of the House lead-in and bled profusely from the first to the second half-hour. Why did the pilot directed by Marc Webb bomb so badly?
Some attribute it to confusing marketing (“they never really explained what the show really was”) and soft pre-launch tracking (“tracking never suggested that there was huge interest in the show”). Others point to Lone Star‘s rural Texas setting, not exactly Fox’s bread-and-butter as the network’s shows traditionally do best in the large cities, and to its old-fashioned Southern soap feel and pace. Some also singled out the morally ambivalent hero at the center of the show that some viewers may have had problem sympathizing with. I personally can see Fox’s rationale putting Lone Star behind House, another show with a flawed character, but I do think that Dr. House’s pill popping and verbal abrasiveness rate much higher on the forgiveness scale than Lone Star hero’s cheating on 2 wives and swindling hard-working people out of their money.
Whatever the reason was, Lone Star tanked worse than even the most pessimistic projections. “We thought a 2.5 (18-49) rating would be bad, but not as bad,” said one of the rival network gurus who are scratching their heads today. And while Fox brass are doing a lot of soul-searching today and not rushing with a cancelation decision, the writing appears to be on the wall for a serialized show like Lone Star. Rumors are already circulating that the drama may stop production, at least temporarily, and a move to pull it from the schedule can’t be that far away. The flop is certain to bring back Fox’s decision in May to pick up Lone Star and Shawn Ryan’s Ridealong over Breakout Kings, a procedural that ultimately went to A&E. In July, Fox entertainment president and big Lone Star fan Kevin Reilly told me he had absolutely no regrets over his choice.
Elsewhere on premiere night, with the final ratings in, CBS’ Mike & Molly and Hawaii Five-0 topped the rookie class with a 3.9 demo rating and widened the gap between them and No.3, NBC’s The Event (3.6). For serialized thriller The Event, weeks 2 and 3 will be key as its premiere numbers were in the range of ABC’s FlashForward and V last season, and both of those shows started fading quickly.
Overall, Mike & Molly, Hawaii Five-0 and The Event all did solid business but were overshadowed by veterans Dancing with the Stars (5.1/13) and Two and a Half Men (4.9/12), both up double-digits from last fall and ranking as the top 2 programs on Monday night by a wide margin. Both also exceeded expectations – shrewd casting like teen mom Bristol Palin brought a lot of young viewers to the traditionally older-skewing Dancing, which logged its highest-rated premiere in 3 years among adults 18-34. And Men proved to be Charlie Sheen legal woes-proof as viewers flocked back to the traditional sitcom in droves despite some trepidations about a possible backlash from Sheen’s brush with the law as well as his highly publicized salary dispute.
“It all comes back to old chestnuts Dancing with the Stars and Two and a Half Men that are hanging right in there,” one network insider said. “New shows come and new shows go, but some of the old shows continue to do well.”
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.






If Fox cancels lone star it will be a real victory for reality and shock-value over quality television. It’s a shame because this may be Fox’s one chance to show that it can make a show with intellect and heart, rather than just having Jack Bauer save the president once a year.
The problem was the time slot, The Event had the drama viewers and DWTS had the women/soap demographic. Fox doesn’t know how to market anything but cheap action. They gave the pilot out with every issue of Vanity Fair in NY and LA. Way to cost yourself viewers Fox. The show is terrific but Kevin Reilly doesn’t have the patience to let an audience build so he’ll probably pull the plug.
I watched the show, and it was OK. I’m willing to give it a chance if Fox is. BUT, here in L.A., they sent out DVDs of the pilot with the L.A. Times. Why watch the show when it broadcasts if you’ve already seen it? It was a weird marketing campaign all around.
LONE STAR also bombed because of the creative elements.
Let’s out them: showrunners Keyser & Lippman…Producing director Peter Horton…Producer John Moranville.
They need to take responsability too.
It can’t all hang on the network & studio execs.
Nuff said.
Why blame the creatives? No one sampled the show. It’s not like V or Flashforward. Those shows were well-marketed and got good premiere ratings. Once audiences saw the lack of quality, they bailed. Blame the creatives for those failures. Lone Star is strictly a marketing/concept failure.
I watched Lone Star. It was quite good. I hope Fox gives it time to find an audience.
To say the show was bad is insane. This was cable quality stuff that Fox should be proud of producing and that every publication lauded. And the ad campaign was gorgeous. The problems is you guys. Viewers. You’d rather watch idiots cavorting around stage or shooting each other than subtle but truthful drama.
Fox will probably cancel it because they’re the last network to try and raise viewers standards. Boy would I be impressed if they tried.
Yes, it was cable quality…therefore it should have been on FX.
I mean, yes, they would have had to make one of the two women a stripper, but, hey.
Bottom line: the marketing was way off. Had no clue what this was.
But Swifty, those guys made a pilot that was called “The best pilot of the year” by almost every publication.
The problem wasn’t the pilot which was actually pretty brilliant. And the ad campaign was gorgeous. The acting was terrific. The problem is you guys. Viewers. People would rather watch idiots cavorting around on a dance floor or actors pretending to kill each other than watch actual thought provoking and human based drama.
Fox will probably pull the plug because they’re the last network to try and raise anybodies standards, but wouldn’t it be amazing if they kept it on and campaigned for good TV.
I agree. I watched all the pilots from last night, and this one was easily the best. Hawaii Five-0 was criminally bad, but Lonestar was actually quite well done and remarkably entertaining.
If Lonestar’s poor performance (and certain immediate cancellation) isn’t the harbinger of death of broadcast/network television, I don’t know what is. Yep, so long as Dancing Z-listers and self-loathing fat people continue to dominate prime-time television, things will only get worse for the networks. At least I still have Mad Men and breaking bad to look forward to about 26-nights out of the year.
When you violate a basic premise in character creation — namely failing to make the lead likable, or at the very least, sympathetic, you invite disaster. C’mon, a con-man who manipulates women AND steals from good folks — just to serve his own selfish ends? What a snooze.
Tell that to Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, Weeds and anything that’s ever starred an antihero, a role rooted far back in drama and literature.. To say that all lead characters have to be likable is provincial. You’d make a great network exec. But a myopic human being.
Actually, there’s a big difference in the setup of the characters in those shows versus the setup of the protagonist in LONE STAR. The problem with the protagonist in Lone Star is it takes too long for him to realize the error in his ways, if it opened with him “wanting” to get out, he’d be more “likeable.” But because we seem him happily con his wives and the innocent people throughout a majority of the pilot, most people won’t stick around to see he actually wants to do good. WEEDS, BREAKING BAD, SOPRANOS all have protagonist that are doing whatever they can to protect their families. In BE, SB’s relationship with the abused woman is what allows the audience to forgive his other misgivings.
Personally, I loved the pilot, but never believed this show would work on network television.
Also a little known fact; the con man angle was a note from the network, it wasn’t in Kyle’s original pilot.
Interesting. Without the con artist storyline it might have been easier to watch. Granted living a double life isn’t great, but cheating people out of their money – you are just on pins and needles waiting for the cops to show up.
Harvardlaureate is confusing likeable characters with relatable characters. A lead character on TV doesn’t have to be likeable. Most notably Tony Soprano has huge character faults and often we don’t like what he does, but he’s always relatable. We relate to his desire to protect his family, and he loves his wife and his children, even as he does things that are not always in their best interest. Same is true of the other shows mentioned with antiheroes – we can relate to some significant aspect of them. But, antiheroes are still a tough sell on network.
Ginger, I do agree with you. But I think after one episode of those other shows you’d be in the same place you are with Lone Star and I think the show does many things better than the premiere of Sopranos did.
Agreed. How can that be a snoozefest, even the way you describe it sounds interesting. Since when is a morally challenging character a bad thing? Making a character likable is a “basic premise of character creation”? Really? We’re a little bit past the Threes Company era. Even Seinfeld was notoriously unlikable.
I’m amazed that so many people who haven’t seen it are critiquing it here. I was blown away by the pilot.
One of the worst directed pilots I’ve ever seen. Marc Webb tried too hard to make it hip. There were indie songs form three years ago…it is Midland / Houston, Texas!!
Hilarious. It makes me think of that line in Broadcast News where Albert Brooks says that when the Devil comes he will “just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance.” Why bother making good TV anymore if people want to watch Snooki dance.
Snooki’s not even on DWTS you fool!!!!!
I’m pretty sure that Snooki part was a joke. I’m thinking you’re not the type of person who gets nuance.
Clearly that snooki comment was a joke. Lets relax here.
It was in fact hyperbole, thanks for using your brain. Wish everybody would.
I’ll bet a lot of you are aspiring filmmakers and writers. Don’t bother. Whether you love or hate Marc Webb and Kyle Killen it moot. This is a loss for people aspiring to do good work. To make original things. You’d be better off finding a group of teens or housewives to exploit in appalaicha or something.
It’s a business, kid. Good work needs to be marketable, too. Does it suck that garbage sells? Yes. But you knew that going in. Write something about teenagers, but make it great.
You write it. I’ll watch it tank.
I saw all the ads. My unspoken question was, “Why would I want to watch this?” There was no answer given. A successful young rat mentored by an old rat, cheating on two women simultaneously while scheming to thieve from Jon Voight? Why do I care? Sometimes the ads excite you, and then the series itself is lousy (Bionic Woman). But they couldn’t even make an interesting ad.
Some guys don’t know the difference betrween a TV series and a movie. This might have made a good movie. But why would I want to spend an hour with this guy every week?
Why do you care about anything? Lets not get all existential about this. Do you care if the plane on The Event crashes or if Charlie Sheen gets laid one more time on CBS?
Let me explain it all to you. Because I’m a genius.
1. The execution was fine. The casting was fine, the directing was fine, the writing was fine. Better than most network tv.
2. Critics will praise almost anything that has the courage to venture outside the box. This show does that. It just forgets one very important rule. Which not even quality dramas get to forget.
3. The premise fails to attract the audience because there’s NOTHING TO ROOT FOR. Do you root for the hero to succeed in swindling more people? Do you root for him to succeed in keeping his two wives secret from each other? In Big Love the bigamy is out. You root for the family to stay together. In Sopranos he’s a crook, but he’s our crook, and he mostly beats up on other crooks, so you root for him to do his job well, which he does. In House he’s a shithead but he heals people — easy to root for.
4. The biggest mistake was concealing what seems to be the intended future storytelling. The hero buys that tract of land at the end to actually make it valuable so his previous swindles will be redeemed. But he will be stymied by the attempts of the rich wife’s brother, as well as his father. Or something like that. And THIS we could root for. But from the marketing (and the pilot structure) no one knows it’s coming. And now it’s probably too late.
No, you’re supposed to root for the guy that clearly is in love (even if it is with two women) and wants to right the wrongs he’s made in his past.
One of the best network pilots in years. It’s lightyears ahead of anything else that’s new on TV this year. Huge WTF at the ratings.
They should have cast a name in the lead.
Their current star whose name escapes me, also looks uncannily like Kyle Chandler. I guess America didn’t want two Kyle Chandlers. It barely knows what to do with the one.
Yeah, they should have cast bloody brad pitt. Boy do you understand television, you genius.
I tuned in because a friend recommended I watch, and I thought it was excellent and very well done. I’ll be sad if Fox pulls the plug, having said that, the marketing sucked because I had zero awareness of it until last night, never saw any kind of promo. and I watch A LOT of tv. So. bad marketing, great show. Ironically, I recieved a DVD of the pilot today in this month’s Vanity Fair issue. .
When americans wonder why their children are so stupid they can look to this show as an example. They are constantly choosing mindlessness over anything that requires thought. And the networks who should be encouraging creativity and cleverness are instead stooping beneath each other to pander to this audience. If only Fox would be brave.
What do your parents look to as an example?
We write about TV here, Bill H. Please take your smugness and flaccid attempts at humor elsewhere.
Look at that one sheet. Shoulda just been called WHITE!
I haven’t lost any sizable chunk of money recently but watching these two scumbags take other characters’ money — television show or not — made me so f#@king angry I had to turn it off. I find it hard to believe anyone thought these would be sympathetic characters given the evaporation of so many people’s savings, homes, dreams of retirement, etc… over the past several years. Simply missed timing wise with this one. Looked well made (for FOX…) — shame the whole crew involved didn’t have some different material to work with…
Seek help.
I saw Paul Weitz’s name on the credits and new it would bomb. talentless and pretentious
Yes you are. Thank you for signing your post so succinctly.
The show is just awful. It’s poorly acted and the script was lacking from the get go. And I don’t like the George Clooney impersonation from the lead actor.
I followed exactly nothing of development season so had no idea coming into this week what any of the shows were about. Maybe the billboards were vague, but the pull-quotes on critical reviews made me want to sample the show, so from a marketing perspective that part worked on me. I watched Hawaii 5-0, The Event, Chase and Lone Star.
Hawaii 5-0 was awful and wooden and predictable but in a familiar way that will probably succeed for the CBS audience. Not exactly an original idea to revive ancient title for name recognition with the boomers, but will probably work because apparently that audience isn’t particularly demanding creatively.
The Event wasn’t terrible, but gimmicky with the time-switches and feels derivative off some of the more recent pop-culture hits.
Rather than violating some ‘likability’ rule, I found the complexity of the Lone Star character admirable, in exactly the same way that others have pointed out other anti-heroes have proven compelling to watch. With all due respect to those who apparently feel otherwise, I personally found it the most well-written, beautifully directed and interestingly acted new show of the night. It was an original and complex set-up and I thought executed brilliantly. I agree that there were wincing moments for the fallout of the main character’s actions. But I thought the actor did a nice job of showing the swagger of his con man persona, and the vulnerability of his wanting to get out of the game. It’s a very complex play, but the notion that he’s genuinely in love with both these women seems believable enough to me and I was rooting for him to find a way out. Doomed, of course, but that’s the drama of it.
The biggest issue for me is that the other, more successful, shows were just OK and not very ambitious. For me at least Lone Star was successfully ambitious and well executed. And a giant flop. I thought Kings was similarly shooting for something ‘non-network’ and got killed. The cautionary tale for me is that smart, complex television is much less likely to work on broadcast/fox. Maybe marketing played a part, but all the examples of ‘best television characters’ listed by others are on premium/basic cable. It’s a little scary. Familiar, mediocre shows are really the way to go with broadcast. Don’t aim higher. Sure there are exceptions, but not a whole lot.
liked the script. hated the show. sorry.