
In the days leading to last night’s premiere of NBC‘s new drama Do No Harm, tracking was soft, with awareness weak across the board and intent to see below average, leading to modest ratings expectations. Rival networks were predicting a premiere 18-49 rating a little below the 2.0 that fellow midseason NBC drama Deception recently opened to, with a 1.8 rating considered a reasonable target. But Do No Harm came in at a 0.9, the lowest in-season premiere rating for a series on the Big 4 broadcast networks. Ever. It was even lower than the dismally rated newsmagazine Rock Center With Brian Williams averaged in the Thursday 10 PM hour (1.0) this season. Do No Harm‘s viewership was a paltry 3.1 million viewers. The shocking underperformance was reminiscent of the fall 2010 debut of Fox’s drama Lone Star. Launching behind House with a major marketing campaign behind it, the well-reviewed drama was projected to deliver a premiere 18-49 rating above a 2.5. Instead, it opened to a 1.3, dropping to a 1.0 in the second week before Fox yanked it off the schedule. NBC did not rush to cancel Do No Harm today as executives there were as puzzled by the abysmal ratings as everyone else, but will likely do so next week unless Do No Harm‘s ratings miraculously rebound, something that almost never happens.
The soft pre-launch tracking suggested that many viewers didn’t know of the show or weren’t sure what it was about, something that can be chalked up in part to the modest marketing campaign supporting the launch. Do No Harm also was saddled with a weak lead-in from an original The Office (1.9) on a night where NBC’s lights had been off for a long time. And it faced spirited competition in the 10 PM hour from the pre-Super Bowl episode of Elementary and hot sophomore Scandal. While all of those factors contributed to Do No Harm‘s demise, the magnitude of the flop indicates that the show was utterly rejected by the audience. Why? For starters, reviews were pretty bad across the board, indicating that Do No Harm was probably not going to be appointment television. Then comes the cast which some say was not compelling enough to draw people in. Because of its setup, the show rests on the shoulders of young Steven Pasquale in his first leading role. He is not a household name to begin with (best known for his supporting role on Rescue Me), and the key art for the show scrambled his face to a point where it was unrecognizable.
And then there is the Jekyll and Hyde premise of a successful neurosurgeon with an evil alter ego (Pasquale). Interestingly, it was NBC that tried the Jekyll and Hyde dual-personality premise most recently with the 2008 drama My Own Worst Enemy. Toplined by Christian Slater, it too died a quick death. There has been a host of dual-reality series in the past couple of years, including Kyle Killen’s Lone Star and Awake, which fizzled in the same NBC Thursday 10 PM slot last midseason — one of three new NBC dramas to come and go in the hour last season, along with Prime Suspect and The Firm. The post-mortem consensus on most of those complex-narrative dramas has been that they are likely better suited for cable. Especially with an antihero at the center like Do No Harm‘s Dr. Jason Cole.
TV Editor Nellie Andreeva - tip her here.


They put it in a slot where rock center has been and averaged those weak ratings…. Also they already released the show online why would I re watch it…. Not to mention a weak lead in and I only saw previews on NBC for the show last week
Online previews have no discernable negative impact on premiere ratings. New Girl and Revolution had aggressive online preview campaigns and premiered to huge numbers.
Its lead-in wasn’t huge, but not especially horrible for NBC, and its retention was miserable. Besides, shows like UAN and Grimm premiered to strong numbers without lead-ins. Even Mockingbird Lane got 1.5 with minimal promotion in the Friday death slot.
My guess: weak key art, unappealing premise and press coverage crowded out by 30 Rock’s finale. Lack of star power certainly didn’t help, but Grimm isn’t exactly full of big names either.
Even so, it’s worrying when networks have no idea why things go wrong. I read an article where Tal Rabinowitz said that NBC couldn’t figure out why Animal Practice bombed, which is just terrifying.
What a refreshing post! You clearly understand the television business. Spot on, although I am not sure how big a role key art plays in getting viewers in front of the screen.
Key art is for marketing. If it is clear then it is more difficult to lure people to watch it. I don’t think Do No Harm‘s marketing art made it clear what the show was about or why it would be worth checking out.
Key art is very important if you are launching a high-concept show with an unknown actor. The best example I can think of was how “White Collar” used Matthew Bomer very effectively in its minimalistic ads. “Do Not Harm” had one of the ugliest key art campaigns I can think of for a recent television show; Steven Pasquale was badly lit and photographed; there’s no real sense of what his face looks like because the “good” face is obscured and the “bad” face that’s projected onto his hands is distorted. The good/evil concept may be communicated, but audiences need a face to identify with and make them interested in this unknown actor.
No! No! No! People didn’t watch this show because they are sick and tired of Medical drab. The “high concept” idea of the doctor having multiple personalities like a modern day “Jeckyll and Hyde” was WAY too contrived to ever work and be relatable to a wide audience. Let this be a lesson to NBC on two fronts: the medical space is DEAD. And high concept shows only work when the premise is not utterly comical! Terrible job, so glad this happened to wake these network idiots up!
If you watched the pilot of ER today you would want to see it as a series. The networks think medicine needs a gimmick. It needs smart writing with great characters. You could put ER on today as is and it would be a hit. All unknown actors by the way.
Are you kidding me? No you could NOT put on ER today because nobody wants to hear a soft medical pitch. If you think ER could be on the air today you clearly do not work in television or live in what we call reality.
The pilot of ER is not soft at all. Watch the pilot. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. The show flies. It’s smart. It’s shocking and you’re never ahead of the story. Todays TV execs don’t trust creators or showrunners to create good medical shows. I’ve developed medicals for networks and they just want to dumbed them down over and over again. House was the last of its kind.
ER had an INCREDIBLE pilot, one of the best ever. It was in no way soft! And yes, it could and would get on the air today. Other medical series have also debuted fairly recently. Animal Practice (a terrible show) is one example. Now, THAT was a soft pilot!
The show(Do No Harm) was entertaining,and some of us viewers just want to be entertained,,,
The show seems interesting until you get to the premise: he’s batsh*t crazy. Not sure why NBC would revive the altered reality premise after failures like Awake, Journeyman, the Slater thing, Dollhouse, Life on Mars etc. You’re asking the audience to go on a journey with your show; then you make the lead a pyscho. Even Dexter ain’t that crazy.
Do not disparage “Dollhouse.”
RE: Oliver,
I love your post. I’m looking to get into market research and I have talked to SO many executives and other people who obtain mathematical measures from Nielsen and MarketCast and are still just GUESSING every time a new episodic show premieres. Why!?
I don’t understand why studios spend so much time, energy, and effort promoting shows that clearly have not been measured properly. Is real testing of audience reactions too expensive? I honestly don’t understand and I have been mulling over this for a long time. Are they marketing to advertisers and not actual people/audience members? If a show totally blows and they know it, honestly, why do they bother? I know, I know…Overall Term Deals and egos, but I’m utterly confused.
Audiences are fickle; I get that too, but I still have a hard time understanding why there is such a gap between testing and performance. By the time a show is testing poorly it’s almost too late. But if its simply a matter of low awareness and a show is kick-ass, then what happens?
As I said, I’m looking to get started in marketing research so I am of course green but I’m interested in understanding this.
“Are they marketing to advertisers and not actual people/audience members?” I suspect the former, not the latter.
The premise of this show, as I understood it, creeped me out. No one wants to think their doctor is some kind of Jekyl and Hyde out to do them harm. Many people have a fear of doctors. Combine that with the concept of an altered reality and you were simply asking too much of audiences. I didn’t watch. I have no idea if the show was any good… I hated the premise, yet suspect I was the target audience.
I saw the marketing on this show and I was not interested because of the subject matter. It was clear to me that it was about a psycho doctor and I had no intention of watching for that reason alone. Making the hero a villain pushes the envelop for me. I want to be entertained, but I still want to trust and admire the hero.
To be fair, when a network or studio claims they “have no idea why such-and-such bombed,” it’s often said for political reasons, such as keeping a good relationship with the producer. I remember one movie executive being claimed that, no bulls***, he had no idea why The Adventures of Pluto Nash bombed.
NBC chose terrible pilots to pick up last year. Bob and his second in command Jen didn’t even read all their scripts. Laura Lancaster was a gate keeper on many and was fired. They have no taste. Peter Traugot is one of Greenblat’s best friends. He doesn’t understand good writing.
It was picked up for all the wrong reasons.
No one wants to see a doctor who is schizo. NBC execs have no taste and think there are shortcuts in their job. The creator of this show is actually a terrific writer and great guy. House and Dexter both have two sides to them. Those worked. This was reduced to the sum of its parts.
It’s not a sexy concep. It does not resonate at all with an interest people have in medicine. Everyone credits the character of House with the success of that show, and it’s a great character. But people are fascinated by mystery diseases. Most have experienced a difficult diagnosis. That is the core appeal of House, and it’s secondary that he’s a curmudgeon. Curmudgeons work on TV. Mashing a horror genre onto a medical one does not. Networks have failed in a similar way with brain doctor shows. The public loves Oliver Sachs and is enamored of case studies and books about brain cases. Instead they put on shows about schizophrenic surgeons. No one is interested in schizophrenic surgeons. The cases must be interesting as well as the doctor. Iconoclast doctors are interesting. Evil ones are not. Same with detectives, actually, and even lawyers.
Blame poorly-crafted marketing, blame counter-programming, blame a little-known actor in the leading role? Maybe. But maybe DO NO HARM was just simply a poorly-conceived premise or just a badly written show? Lord knows, that wouldn’t be a first for NBC.
People need to watch a show before they can find out whether it’s badly written.
True, but people don’t need to watch something to know the premise itself is something that doesn’t appeal to them.
My feeling – not backed up by anything empirical, I admit — is that JnH isn’t something that resonates with a culture no longer built upon Victorian notions of black/white right/wrong but seeped in grays and context of actions.
A surgeon can be a monster. A president can be a bad person. Anyone is capable of “evil” acts – no kidding. I just don’t think the wider “we” as an audience responds to that kind of razor-lined duality anymore – it’s more nuance driven.
That is a remarkably erudite post. Gestalt has more to do with a lot of mass media than we usually consider, I think.
I didn’t watch, but primarily because it sounded so pathetically dull. Another extreme mental aberration as the main character? It’s wearing very, very thin.
And after watching Boss on Showtime, I cannot imagine a weak-tea network version ever feeling really interesting.
Great point –
I blame the first. I saw several trailers for the show and had no idea what it was about other than it was another medical show. The marketing was terrible. I dont blame the actor because i dont know who most of the people are on TV – they are all pretty new to me, and when i like a show, i usually like it because of the writing over who they picked for the cast.
And while i may not get the popularity of Elementary, i wouldnt want to come up against it at this point.
The show bombed for a simple reason: NBC was very disappointed in the pilot when it was delivered. They knew it was a dog and to some degree, the awful ratings were a self-fulfilling prophecy. They were not “puzzled” by the ratings.
The pilot was indeed a dog, although I thought the script itself was okay.
But NBC saw and re-jiggered the pilot before it was picked up to series, so if they were that disappointed they would not have picked it up in the first place, there were of course others in contention. For some reason they saw potential in the show.
It’s a Kabletown show, what did you expect.
This was all about total marketing failure. I never even heard of this show until a week ago and did not learn what it was about until two days ago. That’s ridiculous. NBC blew this bigger than big time and should not be “puzzled” at all.
If you hadn’t heard of this show, you must not have been watching NBC. The promos seemed, at least to me, to be carpetbombed across the schedule. I have it on my TiVo, but I’m holding off on watching it now that I know the ratings were that bad. No sense in getting caught up on Dead Show Walking.
I agree that it was a marketing failure, but not for the reasons you state.
NBC was saturated with ads about this show, I literally couldn’t go 20 minutes without seen an ad for it on NBC, even in the middle of the night.
Online was even worse. Across 3 social media sites I use, they were all inundated with ads for this show and that horrible ‘Carrie Diaries’ show on CW.
The rate of obtrusive ads was so bad that it would become the topic of conversations about how annoying and horrible they were on the very social media sites they were targeting.
I’m willing to bet that a good chunk of the bad ratings is due to people, like me, not watching it simply out of spite for having to endure the non-stop advertisements.
Everyone I know who watched it liked it
I like Stephen Pasquale very much. I think he is an excellent actor and portrayed the characters Jason and Ian brilliantly. I spoke with several friends after the show and they enjoyed it too. I am looking forward to next week’s episode.
I had the opposite experience — wanted to like it but thought it was surprisingly dreadful. To each their own!
You can show ads all you want on NBC, but no one really watches NBC.
Also 100 ads an hour for a show doesn’t matter if the show just looks horrible.
I like Stephen Pasquale but he can’t carry a series on his own. He belongs in the Smash ensemble
I think in the right role (COMEDY) he could totally carry a show. This was truly the wrong fit for him.
No production value. Godawful insecure ads. It is what it is.
Is it just me or are his hands like like twice as large as they should be in proportion to the size of his head in the art? I get they were trying to be clever with the print, but you’re hiding half the main actor’s face so psychologically you make no emotional association with the character’s expression, and if the face on the hands is supposed to be evil then at best it looks like Satan’s retarded cousin. The marketing dept must have phoned this one in after seeing how terrible the show was. Producers can complain about bad marketing all they want but if your product doesn’t inspire the marketing team to work late nights willingly you sure as hell aren’t going to inspire the public to sacrifice a chunk of their free time to sit and watch it.
Wow. I like how you blamed the show’s creative team for the marketer’s bad performance.
I do my best to watch any new scripted show and give it a chance to win my heart. I heard not a peep about it until the breaking news that it failed bigger than any other TV failure. Good or bad, if people like me don’t know about it, of course it’ll flop.
You must not watch enough NBC.
The trailer sucked. That’s why I didn’t tune in. And it looked generic — like most NBC programming.
I switched off when a character said “Please doctor, I don’t want to die.”
That was roughly 40 seconds into the show.
It’s 2013, writers – we shouldn’t hear cheesy lines like these anymore.
Writers?
You ever do the fifty drafts of a produced pilot? By the time it’s over, virtually every line has been beaten to jelly by network notes.
Network executives think “Please doctor, I don’t want to die!” because it’s emotional and perfectly clear, the audience will know exactly what the characters are talking about — and it has “stakes!”
The more desperate the networks become, the more they feel the need to intervene creatively to make the product “better.”
Sadly, “creative” and “executive” seldom belong in the same sentence. The networks are the authors of their own demise.
So true. A network exec insisted we OPEN our pilot with a hysterical woman yelling at a paramedic “Save my son! He’s only six!” .
When we lost the battle, my writing partner and I looked at each other and said “maybe we should wait on the houses in Malibu”.
Indeed, the pilot died. And we’re still living in the Valley.
Writerguy and Flynnfan 12, I feel your pain. When will network execs realize that although the public may be ignorant about many things (I wouldn’t want to program an hour special on the economy, for example), they’ve grown up on television tropes. The moment someone says, “I can’t talk to you over the phone, let’s meet…” we all know that character is going to die. Yet, networks still act like unless it’s billboarded, the audience will never get it.
FWIW, it’s not just television. Every industry has execs who know better than their own target audience. I once worked for a medical charity. All that was needed for a brochure was brief, powerful copy: “We save lives. Please give us money so we can keep saving lives.” Instead, after several rounds of “input,” the result was ten pages of text that left the in-house artist asking, “I don’t understand, what is this thing saying that we DO?”
Until someone has the courage to change the socialization process that holds up this weak system, TV will continue to die. Cable shows are starting to lose their luster as well as more and more executives hire from the same shallow pool of talent. Also thievery is on the rise as executives feel the need to be “smart” in meeting and give “smart” notes, they steal ideas from writers in bogus meetings and pass them along as their brilliance.
An executive stole one of my ideas and passed it to some deal baby producers who murdered it and now he grins in my face every time I see him like he didn’t do it.
Hey fella, TV isn’t dying. (at least the BUSINESS of TV) It’s just spread over more and more channels.
The real solution is a la carte cable.
If the big conglomerates didn’t force cable & satellite to carry hundreds of channels that reach piddly-ass audiences, all those eyeballs would be forced elsewhere.
We’d wind up with 50 channels getting lots of eyeballs. Which equals higher ad rates, and higher production values, and better scripted series and — well, just more TV people actually WANT to watch. Want enough to pay to support them by maintained the cable subscriptions.
Look at HBO, Netflix, and even Fox before them. First comes the good programming. Then come the eyeballs. Marketing can increase the success of great product, but you can only sell a pile of crap once — no one’s gonna come back for week two. (Though DNH didn’t seel even once.)
The Big Three are gone. But the long-term answer is not creating the “Tiny 300.” Maybe to some beancounters think it makes sense for he huge integrated companies. But when viewers start running away from their “hot” new shows to watch quality like Downton Abbey on demand, they’re gonna look like idiots…
…oh, yeah, forgot. That’s already happening.
Hey, don’t knock the Valley. We have tons of Thai massage parlors and karate studios.
This comment is so true. Between the terrible notes from the network and the studio anything written has been pounded into submission. Don’t blame the writer. Casting is a whole other story. The writer/creator fights for great actors and the network wants cheeseballs like Jessica Simpson.
Executives think they know how to write. create, cast and direct TV and THEY DON’T. Execs are the problem. The audience is there, talented writers, actors are there. THE NETWORK BRASS are talentless. A Harvard MBA can’t tell a Norman Lear from a Matt Weiner.
Remember Firefly!
Sorry, but I read an early draft of this script, well before the usual round of Network notes. Simply put, the interior writing was not very good. Paper thin, two dimensional characters that felt generic at best and cliched and arch at worst.
This guy is a really good writer. He was noted to death through out the process by his producers set of notes, the studios set of notes, the network notes. I’m a writer/showrunner and I’ve read his other work. He sold a spec a few years back which means it was just his development on the script and the spec was excellent. He also has incredible ideas. He’s not my friend, I’ve never worked with him but he’s known as a very talented writer.
Networks destroy good ideas every day. The execs haven’t a clue. The biggest problem is their lack of taste and the fact they’re bored with their jobs and afraid in their jobs. They should just trust writers and let them write their vision. The networks would probably do better. With all this micromanaging they’re not making any hits.
Trust me when I say this…this show is going the Playboy Club route after that show got canceled after airing three episodes. I can’t even see this show lasting past next week after these abysmal ratings. This show is strictly for cable and whomever ordered this to series should be fired on the spot.
You really went out on a limb with that one. Good stuff.
Also, it’s whoever.
We are going to replace Do No Harm next week with our Munsters pilot Mockingbird Lane. It’s that or another Dateline which is always cheap to produce. Or we can just air a re-run of Law and Order SVU. Or we can show an hour of Jimmy Fallon at 10 the way ABC did with Jimmy Kimmel.
Or force Jay Leno to do two hours on Thursdays.
NBC’s love for the Jekyll & Hyde concept baffles me, and I’m curious as why almost every season they trot out another version of it.
Jack Donaghy is a better TV programmer than Bob Greenblatt.
Point fingers whichever way… I turn it off before the first break because I felt it was just plain insulting to the audience…. having extras read lines explaining the most mundane plot devices… And the Big 4 wonder why cable is harvesting much more lucrative successes.. They don’t patronize their audience with awful writing!
it’s funny, I know quite a few people (because of its setting & location) that gave this show a shot, and none could bare to stay past the 2nd act.
Everyone got drunk for the ’30 Rock’ Finale….They were passed out by the time this show aired.
My first exposure to this show was last week in the form of billboards with that split titling and two face images. I couldn’t figure out what the show was about. It was confusing, not mysterious. I moved on.
It’s a stupid concept. But the biggest issue, blame for which rests completely on the network execs, is that this same concept already failed not long ago on NBC with Christian Slater. Yet promos and the key art basically said it’s the same show but with a lesser-known actor… absolutely no distinction from the previous show or for that matter on its own terms.
On its own terms, the concept of Jekyll & Hyde isn’t enough to get people excited; in fact, it sounds and feels pretty old and retro compared to Walking Dead, Lost, Revolution, and other dramas that have some kind of high-concept and/or fantasy element.
I knew the show was on, I knew the concept, I saw the key art and the promos, and I know who Steven Pasquale is and liked him in Rescue Me.
I had no interest in checking this out and didn’t. It sounded like a snooze. I suspect many others felt the same.
That is exactly how I felt.
Spot on with your comments. The second I saw the first ad, I was thinking, “Didn’t we just see Christian Slater in this role? And didn’t that show/premise suck?”
I can’t imagine why this would have been green lit by anyone who’s been around more than 5 years.
You got it. Cable shows are making so much noise and taking up so much mindshare that weak-tea broascast efforts just can’t compete. This is distinct from matters of “quality.” It’s too easy (and often wrong) to say that something failed because it’s bad. Two of the biggest recent cable hits, The Walking Dead and American Horror Story, are far from universally acclaimed. But they can’t be ignored.
@Hank: you took the words out of my mouth. It doesn’t seem like a concept that can support many years of a series. It could work in a movie–but then, Kevin Costner did one a few years ago(MR BROOKS)& that bombed too. In a way, DEXTER is a sort of contemporary J/H concept, except Dexter knows when he’s ‘good’ and when he’s ‘bad’ It’s also just not credible:there is a legit mental illness diagnosis of disassociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) but in those cases, the person always has more than two personalities–thus the word multiple! Add on the ick factor of having the person who is out control be a doctor, in whom we all want to trust. Just a bad idea, in other words!
I agree Pasquale would be better in a comedy or dramedy,like R.M.
I laughed out loud when I saw the trailer. At 8:35 every night this guy becomes his alter ego ? OMG ! What trash. The trailer did NOTHING to make me interested. I was happy to laugh at it’s stupidity ever time I saw it. I was pretty sure the show was not a comedy although the trailer was hilarious (in a bad way).
It played like a bad Dean Koontz novel.
Is there such a thing as a good Dean Koontz novel?
AMEN!!! Like we’re supposed to sit and watch this S#$@ like obedient shape and revel at how “high concept” it is. Wow, he ‘morphs’ every night? And then wakes and is like “dude…what happened last night….did i eat a rabbit or like…take out someone’s lawn sculptures?” “I’ll have to figure it out later, right now I have to go to work and be a super dope doctor all day, and impress the hell out of people with my surgical skills. Worst. Show. Ever.
Steven Pasquale is a fine actor, but was miscast in this. The script was good, and could have had impact midseason. I blame casting, specifically, Casting director Liz Dean of Ulrich/Dawson/Kritzer (UDK) Casting. That whole office doesn’t fight for great actors, just anyone who has star power.
Sounds like she wouldn’t pre read you for csi. That office has cast some of the best and most offbeat actors around. They have the emmy’s on the shelf to prove it. Med student. Hah.
Lots of problems with your assessment.
1. Yes, Liz Dean is useless. But you don’t get it fella. CD’s take messages. Twenty years ago they were in charge of finding actors. Today the network makes a list and they go down the list. Liz has nothing to do but make phone calls.
2. An unknown like Steven in this role actually makes one believe she did fight for someone.
CD’s are irrelevant. The wannabe actors have no clue. They run around looking for auditions and don’t realize nobody gets discovered today. Unless you go to Yale or Julliard or are stunning forget it bro. Waste of time. Ed Norton went to Yale.
And a few problems with your assessment also.
2. I do agree with this. A lot of this cast looks like they come from NYC theatre (Pasquale included), so someone somewhere was taking a shot with actors who are practiced and experienced. That NBC went for it is a hats off to them, however badly the show may have turned out and performed. (There are a thousand ways for a new show to be torpedoed. It’s amazing anything good ever gets made at all.)
But.
1. Liz is great. She’s a nice person and a good casting director with good taste. (She also happens to be married to the show’s creator – not sure that’s here nor there, but there you go.) Casting directors are neither useless nor all powerful. To suggest otherwise is either ungenerous or naive. A casting director gets a vote in the process. Depending on the CD and/or their relationship/history with producers and the network(s), they may wield more or less influence. Getting an actor cast on TV is like running a goddamn gauntlet, and while a CD cannot make the final decision, they can make their voice heard and be a champion. (Or they can block the process from the outset by refusing to bring an actor in. Rarer, but it happens.)
Actors get “discovered” all the time. Usually after years of paying dues. (see: Jon Hamm, to a lesser degree Bryan Cranston when he got MALCOLM…, and Aaron Paul/et. al. for that matter, etc.) There are plenty of Juilliard/NYU/Yale/Carnegie Mellon grads waiting tables and doing regional theatre. As are there plenty of good looking receptionists and gym desk attendants who want to be on TV. Talent, hard work, dedication, commitment, and a good reputation pay off eventually – one way or another. That is the very reason why Liz Dean continues to cast, David Schulner continues to write, and Steven Pasquale will continue to get cast. I agree that “Med Student” doesn’t “get it,” but I’m not sure your post clarifies much. Balancing business and art is a tough task, but hardly a waste of time if you care at all about the job. You can’t hit if you’re not in the batter’s box.
And Ed Norton went to Yale undergrad, not Yale Drama. Totally different thing with no relevance to the way his career has gone. (And for what it’s worth…going to Juilliard, etc. may carry weight on Broadway, but nobody in Hollywood gives a shit.)
Narrower the mind, broader the tongue…bro.
Boom.
I wonder what LAW & ORDER would have gotten in that slot – perhaps it’s time to bring it back.
Totally. I’m ready for aL&O reboot. Please
Or FSI, Fire Scene Investigation.
I’m just looking forward to inevitable when they have to replace Do No Harm and Deception with Hannibal. At least Hannibal sounds interesting, has a good writer behind it and a good cast.
Hannibal is pointless and terrible. The script is hateful and misogynistic and deeply obvious. Fuller is impossible to work with. They got a great cast so maybe they will bring up the quality. Greenblat has a creative crush on Fuller. God help him.
quarterlife
This craptastic show is a clear example of how Hollywood really works these days. This garbage should have never made it past the pitch stage, it should have been DOA in the room. But, so it goes, this guy scratched that guys back and this relationship trumped that relationship and instead of quality programming from quality writers, producers, crew and cast we get pure garbage like “Do No Harm.” Talent, I wish we could actually see some from time to time.
Actually, no. That’s not how this show came about. And you clearly know nothing of what you speak. (“Clear example of how Hollywood really works”… Dude, you don’t work in Hollywood, do you.) This show may have been rife with bad decisions, but they were made in a (presumably incorrect) bid to get more viewers – to find a clear, entertaining concept. It’s worked before; didn’t work here, and while you can say it’s cause the show isn’t good enough (and that may be true) – it hasn’t stopped other mediocre fare from triumphing! And if a show bombs on the first night out – it’s certainly not ’cause anyone was reacting to how bad it is – they haven’t seen it yet! They just aren’t on board for the whole concept.
Couple of possibilities. One – NBC hasn’t had a “must-watch” TV event since the Golden Globes and the NFL wildcard game (three weeks ago) for exposure to a wide general audience. Two – what other NBC show would have an audience that would naturally tie-in to a show like this? and three “awareness” is only achieved if an ad penetrates the consciousness of an individual. If someone sees an ad and immediately dismisses the show as something they wouldn’t watch, they dismiss it and don’t bother remembering it.
I can’t believe NBC thought this show could win this slot, hell any slot. Did the pilot test well?