
Genre series are all the rage in cable with the success of AMC’s The Walking Dead and HBO’s True Blood, which have been breaking series records to rank as their network’s top-rated series and become pop culture staples. A genre series, The Vampire Diaries, also is the highest-rated series on the CW, which has had continuous success in the sci-fi arena with veterans Smallville and Supernatural. But, with the exception of ABC’s Lost, sci-fi, vampire, zombie, fantasy and comic book-based series have struggled to attract sizable audiences on the major broadcast networks. That has not deterred the nets to heavily pursue such projects this development season.
The 2 drama pilots ordered so far by Fox are both in the genre category: Locke & Key is based on Joe Hill’s comic, and Alcatraz features missing Alcatraz prisoners who reappear in present day. Genre projects have also attracted some of the biggest writer-producers in town: Lost‘s J.J. Abrams is behind Fox’s series Fringe and Alcatraz, David E. Kelley, who dabbled in sci-fi with Life on Mars, is developing a series adaptation of comic book icon Wonder Woman, Greg Berlanti co-created and is executive producing ABC’s freshman superhero family drama No Ordinary Family, Fringe co-creators Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are executive producing Locke & Key, and Battlestar Galactica‘s David Eick is involved in a series adaptation of The Hulk for ABC and Marvel.

ABC, the network that had the most recent genre drama success with Lost and has 2 such series on the air, No Ordinary Family and V, is making big bets in the field. What’s more, it is looking to translate the genre movies’ big success at the box-office to the small screen by bringing in the auspices behind some of the biggest genre feature hits. Melissa Rosenberg, the writer of the hugely popular Twilight movie franchise, is writing AKA Jessica Jones, a drama about a former female superhero based on a Marvel comic. Oren Peli, the writer-director of the blockbuster Paranormal Activity franchise, is behind a paranormal drama set in the Amazon, and Pan’s Labyrinth and the Hellboy mastermind Guillermo Del Toro is partnering with Eick on the adaptation of The Hulk.
But can genre movies’ box-office success be replicated on mainstream TV? For the most part, the answer seems to be no. The closest to a genre hit on the big broadcast networks these days is CBS’ hit comedy The Big Bang Theory, which has geek overtones but is broad enough to attract wide audiences. But CBS’ vampire drama Moonlight and horror drama Harper’s Island and ABC’s sci-fi series Flash Forward lasted a season each, while Fox’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Dollhouse were axed after 2. The 4 genre dramas on the major broadcast networks right now, Fringe, No Ordinary Family, Human Target and The Event, attract the same average audiences of 5-6 million viewers as cable series The Walking Dead and True Blood. (Fringe‘s viewership is even lower, 4.5-5 million and will probably go further down when the show relocates to Fridays, but the series is a major DVR gainer, which brings it up on par with the others.) Maybe this is the ceiling for genre series no matter what type a network they are on. For a cable net, that is a great number but for a major broadcaster, it is way too small. Of course, there are those lightning-in-a-bottle cases like Lost and the first season of Heroes that transcend the core sci-fi fan base and enter mainstream, but long-running hit genre drama series on the Big Four like The X-Files seem to be a thing of the past. It doesn’t help that most of those series are serialized, a genre that has been struggling mightily on broadcast TV.
Along with genre projects, the often serialized period and costume dramas are also in fashion at the broadcast networks this development season. ABC is developing an Pan Am-themed drama set in the 1960s with Jack Orman and Tommy Schlamme and a Romeo & Juliet adaptation set in Renaissance Italy written by Andrea Berloff; CBS is working on a reboot of The Wild Wild West from former CSI co-showrunner Naren Shankar and Battlestar Galactica developer Ron Moore; while NBC is shepherding a drama set at a 1960s Playboy club penned by Chad Hodge. Just like genre series, period and costume dramas have become staple on cable with AMC’s Mad Men and the upcoming Hell on Wheels, HBO’s Boardwalk Empire, Showtime’s The Tudors and the upcoming The Borgias, and Starz’s Spartacus and the upcoming Camelot. But all recent attempts to launch such series on the broadcast networks have fizzled: ABC’s Empire and Life on Mars and CBS’ Swingtown barely lasted a season. And the CW’s 1980s Gossip Girl spinoff didn’t go beyond pilot stage. So when it comes to historic projects, history is not on the broadcast networks’ side. But just like with genre dramas, the Big 4 are looking to write new history by taking a page from cable networks’ book.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


It is always a good idea to zig in the direction of the most recent successes.
They honestly think a series about the Hulk will work? America wont watch. Wonder Woman maybe but the chances of it being casted right are very slim. They better go with an American actress unlike Bionic Woman.
Well, something has to give. The lack of creativity in broadcast this past year is staggering.
I still believe that Sci-Fi can work, but if you’re doing things that take place in the past, your best bet is to take it to cable where the nostalgia/curiosity factor plus lowered ratings expectations means your show has a better chance to succeed.
If a show like Glory Daze (riff on 80′s college life) was on network television it would be canceled, but on TBS, it’s good enough I suppose.
I find it odd that people are holding their arms outstretched, heads up in the sky, asking THY LORD for answers on how to make a show work on the Networks.
Here’s the answer: STOP LETTING THE SCRIPTS BE BAD.
Is anyone else just frustrated that scripts get bought and then messed with during the pilot process that they become unwatchable? Just let the scripts be good.
Wow, Roodie, what keen insight. While a few mediocre scripts do get through because of the high-profile talent that creates or is attached to star in them, no one at any of the networks honestly believes they are making the scripts work.
while some networks/execs give more constructive notes than others, they all are trying to make the scripts less “bad.”
Actually, moron, if you had some reading comprehension skills, the point was that the networks destroy and dumb down well-written scripts all the time.
But what about when you get shows that are good, and people just won’t watch?
The Sarah Connor Chronicles
Caprica
Journeyman
Fringe
Pushing Daisies
Firefly
Wonderfalls
What about when you get shows that are good, people start watching and promoting it for a second season and then they get rid of everyone who made it special, bring on a new crew and completely ruin it?
Human Target
Television executives.
They’re overachievers from high school who think they’re creative and feel they’re adding something to the process, and feel smug over girls who were prettier than them in h.s., or guys. They add nothing at all to the process but they’d be fired if they just let great scripts be great. But now, there are like 5 of them you have to keep happy, you have to listen to their ridiculous suggestions, humor them, and then America wonders why the shows are so terrible.
Look at the shows that you liked when you were younger, and notice how 12-22 year-old’s like the very same shows. Even the ones that weren’t well-written, like 90210 or Melrose, kids like them.
But let people writer. True, many writers are criminally untalented. 60%, at the very least.
But whether it’s Three’s Company or 21 Jump Street or Cosby or Roseanne or The Simpson/Critic, letting the writers do what they want is what creates lasting work.
Go for the best scripts, the most well-written scripts, regardless of genre, leave them alone, and that’s who you make a hundred million bucks.
Executives destroy most well-written shows. Ask any producer, actor, writer, you know, the people who the common man care about. Not some suit who’s like a bull in a china shop, but think they’re offering something more because they pointed out a tweak that a lot of bright college kids could point out.
You want to hit 100 episodes? Pick the best scripts, and do not touch them.
Yeah and then you get a show like Glee. Sometime television execs know what they are doing and they can stop a writer from going too far up his own ass.
Bad example. Glee is a poorly written show. Ryan Murphy spread himself too thin. Which is why, box office or not, Eat Prey Love was one of the most critically savaged and empty films of the year.
Glee is a lot of things. Good writing? Not one of them.
I’m specifically speaking about great pilot scripts that are sucked dry of all the things that drew interest in the first place.
You may be interested in the definition of “genre” as you use the word in several different ways. It means “a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like”. Virtually everything on TV is already a “genre” of one kind or another. Medical, musical, detective, cop, soap, buddy comedy, sitcom, are as much “genres” as sci fi, western or horror. Even reality is now a genre. So what exactly did you mean?
Oh, I see. You are one of those dictionary.com di@%heads. Honestly, you must have something better to do.
It’s an industry colloquialism. When people in the business talk about “genre shows,” they mean horror/SF/supernatural and the like.
I am in the industry. Genre means any film that is not character driven only, like In The Bedroom, Blue Velvet, Taxi Driver etc. Genres do not include only horror or sci fi. Detective, cop, buddy comedy, action, musical, and many many more are all genres.
Sorry — cop / musical is not “genre.” Genre is sci fi / fantasy / horror. A cop show is a cop show. I am sorry you’ve been in the industry so long and not picked up on this distinction, good luck with everything.
As the above post specifies, genre, as the industry you claim to be in defines it, is indeed horror, sci-fi, and sometimes fantasy. Character driven blah blah is usually classified in the drama section. Unfortunately on some coverage forms the question is asked “what genre” a script is, which is perhaps what is confusing you, you of the industry or so you claim?
Well, it is good to see the broadcast nets developing different and fresh material.
Don’t forget Fox’s Terra Nova.
To quote Peter Graves in Airplane!
Do you like gladiator movies Joey? Like to watch half-naked men wrestling each other? Have I got a show for you. It’s called Spartacus and it’s very educational. When this plane lands I’m going to take you to my apartment near the airport and we can watch Spartacus together.
Pan Am sounds like a good show. Maybe the next Mad Men?
Don’t forget Terra Nova.
Locke and Key is no good.
The question is, will Fox executives have the stones to drop it, or are they too cowardly to do so?
Here’s hoping they are!
Why do you say its not good? Have you read the pilot? Just curious. The comic book it’s based on is incredibly compelling, and I could see how it would make a good show.
Why wouldn’t HULK work? The ’70s version ran for 5 years–an unheard of amount of time for a comic book property at the time and the comic has been around since the ’60s. Trick is to let Guillermo and Jeph Loeb handle it. If David Eick decides he’s creative and bollixes it up like his patronizing BIONIC WOMAN redo, it won’t be around long.
Sci-fi can work on network TV … but it has to be good and it has to be given time to develop a mythos that draws in viewers. There has to be a commitment to the show. Look at Supernatural’s rating growth over its seasons. Don’t jump into a complex story with multiple storylines and conspiracy theories right away; let them grown naturally as the characters and long-term plots develop. Don’t make the show relentlessly dark and dismal. All the successful shows have some element of romance, comedy, lightheartedness, tongue-in-cheek about them along with their traditional plots. What sci-fi fans like me want are shows that are written by people who understand that 1)sci-fi is not just for 14-year-old boys, 2)characters are important and need to be engaging or worth cheering for, 3)lots of women watch True Blood, The Walking Dead, Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Smallville because of the romantic plots, and 4)good sci-fi times to take to develop an audience so don’t move it around where we can’t find it (and don’t put it up against one of the other genre shows). It can be done. Yes, I know that there are sci-fi fans who decry the “soap opera” nature of the successful shows, but if we’re going to get sci-fi on the networks, it’s absolutely necessary to draw in a larger audience than the hardcore techies like me.
Moonlight would had been a great hit if CBS would had been smart enough to realize how hot Vampires were going to be in just a few months . Moonlight was doing well enough in the Friday slot CBS dumped it. CBS messed up, they were not interested in Vampires at all, just in soporific medical or cop shows, so they cancel it. HBO and CW now have hits as Vampire Diaries and True Blood. The Walking dead is an amazing show !. The best new show this season!!
It’s interesting how cable is now setting the trends for broadcast.
Fringe is the poster child for the notion that the American public just won’t watch genre TV, no matter how well done it is. It’s one of the four or five best genre shows that broadcast TV has ever produced.
For genre shows to really click, aside from being legitimately good (something The Event for instance is not), they have to have the right combination of (a) dead-simple concept and (b) dissimilarity to any other show. So LOST was the mysterious island show — easy to grasp, nothing else like it on TV. THE WALKING DEAD is the zombie show — same thing.
Which brings us to Fringe. It’s great, but the sad fact is, most people who’ve never seen it aren’t clear on what it’s about except in assuming that it’s an X-Files clone.
It’s an X-Files clone?
I’m a screenwriter. I have no idea what Fringe is about, and I”ve never met anyone in my life who watches it.
You either need to meet new people and leave your home (as the Fringe outdoor campaign was by and large quite informative), or are just being facetious. Either way, lame.
You’re shock is because you work for the show.
Sorry, but no one in America knows what Fringe is, what it’s about, or have a friend who watches it.
Which is why it’s been moved to Friday.
Don’t drop your jaw and say I should get new friends. Unlike you, my friends actually have lives, and do amazing things. They prosecute drug cartels and are preparing for the playoffs. They raise children. They don’t really give a crap about a television show the way some nerdy writer does.
And yes, *I’m* a nerdy writer, and I don’t even care what it is. I have a girlfriend (you should try it sometime) and outside interests beyond a terrible show.
Here’s something that’s neither lame nor facetious. 50% of Americans know who Joshua Jackson is. 1% know what FRINGE is about, and a fraction of that figure have ever watched it, even once.
I`m a huge fan of Fringe but this explains its major problem with viewrship: “Here’s something that’s neither lame nor facetious. 50% of Americans know who Joshua Jackson is. 1% know what FRINGE is about, and a fraction of that figure have ever watched it, even once.”
Fringe puts its main (or only) draw Jackson on the backburner. The show is about Anna Torv character and, to a degree, John Noble`s. They are fantastic on the show, trully Emmy worthy, but nobody knows them. As stated by SL, 50% knows Jackson. So why isn`t Jackson front and center? There are many Jackson fasn who abandoned the show when they realized that he doesn`t have much to do. It`s Torv (and Noble) show and that`s not why they started to watch, nor they warmed up to those other actors to continue watching. In fact, they dislike them for they feel Jackson`s screen time is taken by the other two and that the writers favor them over Jackson.
If they want to boost Fringe ratings, they have to expand the known actor`s roles – Jackson, Reddick – or a bust.
“Sorry, but no one in America knows what Fringe is, what it’s about, or have a friend who watches it.”
I’m sure if the Internet was around back in ’69, there would have been someone like you making the same observations about Star Trek.
Also: Star Trek was a low-rated show that got booted to Fridays and wound up a genre franchise because of the unscripted passions of the “nobodies” who watched it. You might want to look closer at the deep enthusiasm of the 5 million nobodies who DO watch this show every week, instead of scoffing at their invisibility. Fringe seems likely to continue to win enduring admirers after its inevitable early cancellation. People will be talking about this show longer than they will be talking about Lost.
What do you mean by “genre?” If “Big Bang Theory” is a “genre” piece then what isn’t?
While I realize the same thing could be said for just about any show, a rebooted Wild, Wild West could be really cool if they got the cast right and it had the right light-hearted yet not too light-hearted tone.
If Lost and Moonlight and Vampire Diaries and Supernatural and Star Trek and V, et al, prove anything, it’s that a network audience for the genre DOES exist and will be loyal. But the nets can’t expect Seinfeld-type numbers. TV has been watered down so much, people can only watch one thing at a time. So don’t freak out when your overnights are low…if the show is good, people will watch it via DVR or online or live. There’s just a rush to cancel anything that’s not a blockbuster immediately…and in truth, very, very, very few shows ever attain that status.
I certainly WISH I could watch The Walking Dead, Dexter, Carnivale, True Blood, Spartacus and other cable hits. But I refuse to pay the cable ransom, so they don’t get my eyes. If those shows were on network TV, however, I’d surely be a viewer.
i truly do not understand why NBC of all networks refuses to develop multi camera comedies — where they have had their greatest success. just one show — the cosby show turned it’s network around.
Simply because this is 2010, and the TV landscape isn’t the same as the 80s. While two of comedy’s biggest hits are mutli-cam, the viewing audience’s tastes have change in the last 25 years, and there is a lot more competition, from single-cam comedies and 1-hours. It’s just not that simple anymore where 1 show can save a network… even American Idol won’t be on top forever.
Broadcast television can have all the genre shows they want and it still won’t help them. Why? Because network executives are always getting their dirty fingers in the producers/writers creative business and forcing them to turn their shows into vanilla crap! Or the writers of the shows are terrible to begin with.
This is why writers/producers have jumped to basic and pay cable, because they know they have creative freedom to put out amazing material on the air.
When broadcast television learns the lesson then they will succeed, otherwise crap is still crap.
Oh by the way, ABC firing David E. Kelly after his atrocious version of “Life on Mars” was the best thing ever and where network intervention was a good thing.
As a big fan of “genre” type of shows, one of the biggest problems the broadcast nets face is they are still making 22 episodes of these genre based serialized shows where the cable nets can make 13. There is too much pressure to come up with storylines and character arcs that don’t work. Imagine how tired “True Blood” or “Battlestar Gallactica” would get if they were forced to do 22 episodes each season. People would tune out after a while like they do the shows on the broadcast networks. “X Files” was brilliant because it was one of the few shows to successfully combine episodic tv with serialized character and story arcs and a big mythology that played out each season. “Heroes” and “Pushing Daisies may have lasted longer if they only had to do 13 each season. Both shows started very strong then got tired rather quickly. Broadcast nets should follow the cable model with some of these genre serialized shows they may find more success that way.
My two cents…..enjoy the holidays everyone!
(A note: “The X-Files” never “played out” it’s mythology each season. It just kept piling more and more on.)
Excellent post! What is the business logic (yes, I’m assuming it must be an economic reason) behind forcing these shows into 22 episode seasons still in 2010 (almost 2011)? Cable networks and the BBC have proven that you can rally a rabid audience around 13 episode seasons.
Serialized Sci-Fi/genre shows don’t work on network because they require 22 episodes per season while cable only does 8-12 episodes per season. I do not see why the networks don’t realize that and if they wanna play in the cable arena, they have to change their game plan like they did with LOST (16 episodes) in the final three seasons. 22 serialized shows are just too much on an investment for the audience especially when networks cancel serialized shows and never answer any questions. Networks are just too greedy and too conceited to change. They are like Blockbuster and cable is Netflicks. Yes, networks, you once reigned supreme on TV with 60 millions viewers for CHEERS and MASH, but times they are a changing. Change, damn it! Or get ready to follow Blockbuster to bankruptcy court.
That isn’t true. Battlestar and Stargate had 20 episodes a year.
those were flagship shows, dude. the original argument still is right. WALKING DEAD had six episodes. the reason why serialized works on cable because the investment of time isn’t as long. i agree with Ben.
It’s actually not just the limited number of shows each season that makes cable shows “better” — it’s the fact that the entire season is usually in the can before the first episode airs, allowing for more fine tuning than network TV gets.
FlashForward should have done everything but ABC promoted it so badly by comparing it to LOST (it was much better by the way) and the scheduling was awful. 3 months hiatus killed Lost ratings during season 3 and it never recovered. Why did ABC think that it was going to work for a rookie show is anybody’s guess.
Quite frankly, FF should have been on FOX network or a cable network like Showtime or FX. I just hope that someone will approach ABC to get the license. This gem deserves to continue.