'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
There's more trouble for Jeff Zucker and Ben Silverman. NBC's upcoming Universal Media Studios sitcom 
Parks And Recreation was supposed to be a real winner since the mockumentary comes from Greg Daniels and Michael Schur of The Office and stars Amy Poehler. I say "supposed" because there are problems galore in the rough-cut pilot, according to a March 18th-dated "Consumer And Market Intelligence Research Summary" which I saw this weekend. Considering the show starts airing April 9th, can Parks And Recreation get fixed in time? You be the judge: here are some excerpts from the 12-page report (9 are charts and graphs):
• PARKS AND RECREATION’s overwhelming resemblance to THE OFFICE caused many viewers to simply see it as a “carbon copy” of a successful show. The pilot was seen as “predictable” and lacking in character development, even for a pilot. PARKS AND RECREATIONS needs to differentiate itself from THE OFFICE; otherwise it runs the risk of being seen as “derivative,” “forced,” and “unoriginal.”
• Expectations for this show are very high, especially among OFFICE viewers. Many had seen the promos and were expecting an “OFFICE-type mockumentary” with the same tone, but felt the pilot was too close and similar to the OFFICE. However, many OFFICE fans were quick to point out that THE OFFICE did not become their favorite show overnight. For many, the show grew on them overtime and viewers expect a similar pattern with PARKS & RECREATION and, given their excitement for the show, most are willing to give it a longer commitment than they would another new comedy. This goodwill is stronger than usual, but viewers will expect to see the show to be as good as THE OFFICE soon. Furthermore, labeling the show as being “from the producers of THE OFFICE” adds credibly to the show and helps raise viewers’ expectations.
• Focus needs to evolve away from the pit — consider showing Leslie [Amy Poehler] and her team dealing with various parks and recreation duties. There is a lot of interest in exploring the comedy potential in a government office. The bureaucracy that exists at this type of local government is “very believable” and viewers hoped it could provide for some quirky and silly situations. Based on the promos that are currently airing, most expect storylines to take place in parks around the city.
Characters
• Although many saw her as the “Michael Scott character [from The Office]”, Amy Poehler was well liked. SNL fans felt her character Leslie was a bit “too serious” and “too low-key” and many expected her to have more energy and enthusiasm, especially when she is getting drunk at the end of the show. Viewers appreciate her “big heart” and the fact that she is trying to help Ann and Andy.• The show could use a genuinely likeable male lead. The lack of quality male characters was evident in both the Dial Test and Focus Groups. While Leslie, Ann and April are good characters; all the men in the show were seen as “sleazy” in one way or another. Because there are no “datable” men in the cast, there is little “romantic tension” or “interesting relationship potential” in the show.
Execution & Tune-out
• The beginning of the show needs to better explain the setting and situation. Many were confused as to the reasons and motivations behind the “documentary.” Many asked if it was about Leslie or Ann or the pit even given that the show opens on Ann and Andy and not Leslie.• Pacing was seen as “slow”. 40% of Viewers felt the “pace of the show was too slow.” This was especially evident during the scenes in the conference room or offices of the municipal building.
• Good positive spikes in the opening scenes and during the classroom open forum session but positive spikes flatten during the scenes in Leslie’s office and when she meets Mark out on the patio (Approx Mins 8:30-9:30).
• Highest positive spike comes from Leslie falling into the pit.
• The last 6:30 (approx) suffer from lower positives and higher negatives as “slower” and “more tedious” scenes are featured. Ron’s opinion on the role of government and his discussion with Mark received low positives throughout. The conference room discussion about the committee’s name as the tag was “too long” and “too much of the same joke” for many viewers.
• High tune-out during the opening 4 minutes, especially during Ron’s description of public forums. Tune-outs resume after the classroom forum scene when the action takes place in Leslie’s office and out on the patio during her discussion and testimonials with Mark.
Loading ...
Ughh… I wonder how much NBC paid for a 12 page report of which 9 pages were pretty pictures and the other 3 notes that could have come from an intern.
Or to put it another way… how do I get paid to produce such a report?
From what I’ve seen, yeah, “derivative,” “forced,” and “unoriginal” sounds about right.
Amy Poehler better have a backup plan. Or at least still has Lorne on speed dial.
Ah yes, an audience is confused by much of what’s going on, then suddenly:
“Highest positive spike comes from Leslie falling into the pit.”
Hehehehehe, funny lady fall into pit!
I have no idea if this show will be good or not (although hope so, of course), and the whole idea of doing something so similar to your biggest comedy hit seems a bad one to me, as even if it is good it dilutes the brand of the original… BUT that all said, MANY quality comedies that are now considered among the best ever tested terribly and had to deal with dumb notes like those shown here.
(We would never have George Costanza if the writers of Seinfeld had been stuck trying to make everyone “likable” for dial tests and focus groups.)
“Cheers” came in last place its first year on the air.
“Seinfeld” struggled its first year.
“The Office” also struggled, not hitting its stride until the second season
The “30 Rock” pilot is one of the very worst episodes of the show and yet it found its way (quickly in their case.)
While yes, some shows do gangbusters right out of the gate, most need time for the ensemble to come together, for the writers to find the right tone and balance — simply for a series to find its voice.
I’m not sure printing these notes helps anyone — not the creators of the show trying to make it work, nor the audience who reads this blog, as all it does is show us a work in progress. It seems the point of printing them here is simply to make NBC look bad, but really you just have to look at the weekly ratings to do that. Why bother showing this?
What next, are we going publish the networks’ notes on writers’ first drafts of their pilots?
This has the potential! NBC needs to give it a chance. More original stories to come I am sure. Do not remove it from the air yet! As stated before, great shows have had a slow start, GIVE THIS SHOW ITS TIME TO SHINE!!!
Alicia from Marietta, GA
You see notes like this and its no wonder the BBC is making more interesting comedies than the USA.
Everyone has to be “nice” and “likable” and “help others.” And usually networks want everyone to be great at their job, too.
Because characters who are sweet and always do the right thing and are perfect are hilarious!
Louie De Palma? A saint.
Homer Simpson? Never messes up or is selfish.
George Costanza? Always trying to help others.
Dwight Schrute? A big heart. Very date-able.
Not that all your characters should be a-holes, of course, but they shouldn’t be made so vanilla and bland as to not be funny. And this kind of testing, with those stupid dials and focus group questions, just leads to bland bland characters and more people going to Reality Shows to find the entertaining characters they used to get in comedies.
They should go back and shoot inserts of Poehler looking at the camera and buggin’ out her eyes. Because that was so funny in “Baby Mama” and “SNL” and almost everything else she’s done.
WOW. This is FUCKING NUTS. Focus groups NEVER have any negative feedback on anything, much less pilots. This is really a RARE situation. Thanks for the “inside scoop.”
I can’t comprehend why they’d even attempt a second mockumentary show. Clearly the Office team could’ve generated a decent single-camera comedy without blatantly going back to the well.
It ALWAYS happens with successful formulas: the parasites come to milk from the mother load. Meh.
I really like Amy, but with those comments it might not make it past the pick up point. Why not a baby mama spin off. Amy living like the Beverly Hillbillies like P. Hilton but out of place? Or what about Amy as a newscaster like Mary Tyler Moor, but not 30 Rock. Or how’s this in the new GQ Amy is dressed up like a young Mary put her in Dick Van Dyke spinoff. No pun intended. Or better yet hire me as a show runner and I’ll turn it around in two weeks.
I actually took part in this study in Las Vegas… the show was horrid. It was not even a “poor mans” version of The Office but much much worse.
So much potential and it really was wasted. Basically the problem was the focus on the “pit” issue was so overdone and it actually became boring.
The highlite for me was the sighting of Chris Pratt from Everwood as the guy who originally fell into the pit.
You know… a lot of those notes would have been a bit more useful when it was still a script…
Didn’t the Friends pilot also test kind of poorly? I’m not saying this show will turn into a Friends level hit, but these kinds of focus groups are pretty useless.
None of those guys are datable? Huh.
Shame on you Nikki for buying into the conclusions of a fucking focus group! You’ve always been on the side of the creatives, why in the world would you validate these idiot focus groups by just blindly agreeing with their “results”?
These reports are a bunch of crap. Larry David was given as a gift a framed copy of the report of the Seinfeld pilot that was much more negative than this one by an NBC exec. The exec thought it was funny. Larry replied “Why is it funny? You still use these.” Nikki I’m surprised you’d publish this. Any good show is bound to get a negative one.
I’m wondering if anyone involved in this show has ever actually worked in Parks and Recreation. I did–for a couple of decades and believe it or not, I have a degree in the subject (yes, I knowm, THAT is funny).
First, they don’t call it “Parks and Recreation” any more. The title is dated..by about 20 years.
There are endless comedic storylines (we often talked at work about how the whole gig should be a sitcom) and endless visual settings. City politics are intricate and funny…and there are plenty of hot-guy characters to be created (there are way more guys in that line of work that girls). You can even do the “dramatic issue of the week” stuff in relation to drugs, gangs, homeless and child care–those city services are often in the P&R department.
Sounds like they missed the mark. Not because there aren’t plenty of marks to hit.
A
It’s called Parks & Recreation in PA. I guess we’re 20 yrs behind the times in the Philly area, and more than 20 yrs behind in the Tucky part of Pennsyltucky.
I feel badly for Poehler. She’s a fine talent and a good person caught up in a desperate, dying network’s stupid impulse to just photocopy its few successes and plaster its schedule with see-through clones.
To the male Series Regulars on “Parks and Recreation”: The good news is, you booked a network series. The bad news is, a 12-page “Consumer And Market Intelligence Research Summary” calls you “undatable.”
Ouch.
Jesus, Nikki, are you putting this much value in audience testing? Stop exposing yourself as knowing nothing about making content. If you want audience testing spikes, just have big boobs walk into the scene.
Having worked within the parks & recreation division of the town I grew up in (I lifeguarded for a few years), there should be plenty of material to develop storylines different from the office. The thing about a parks & recreation dept is that few actually work in an office but typically spread all about town on beaches, in parks, in rec centers.
Testing can suck my ASS!!!! It’s a big waddevah! Ultimately what matters is not a spike or a this or a that, it’s whether audiences like the show in general and want to spend time with the characters week in and week out. And shows get better. Remember 30 Rock’s dreadful pilot? And now look at it.
As we all know (or at least assume know), research reports like this represent a panel of probably 30 people or so. And, historically, the best comedies always seem to test horribly. Also, the way this is written, it feels more like the opinion of the NBC research executive more than anything. I have been to focus groups and then have read the report from the research team and have asked “were you at the same session i was??!!??”
So, while I have NO idea if this show is good or not, I do know that this type of data is really tricky to be out there for public consumption before the show has even aired.
I feel bad for the writers/producers/actors who have to now overcome pre-ordained failure.
And, NBC has got to figure out who their leak is because this is crazy that this report has been leaked.
Maybe it’s just me but I wish we were rooting for success (and supporting each in that endeavor – Mike Shur is one of the funniest best guys and doesn’t deserve this) rather than delighting in failure.
C’mon Nikki. Putting stake in research reports? How about putting up the research reports on Seinfeld or other shows and let’s see just how reliable that crap is.
Greg Daniels is one of the few geniuses in this business. Yes, it may have too many similarities to The Office, but I have no doubt that he’ll make it into its own thing and a terrific show.
And I’m not alone in having that faith. If you want to put any stake in this research, put it in this key part:
“However, many OFFICE fans were quick to point out that THE OFFICE did not become their favorite show overnight. For many, the show grew on them overtime and viewers expect a similar pattern with PARKS & RECREATION and, given their excitement for the show, most are willing to give it a longer commitment than they would another new comedy. This goodwill is stronger than usual.”
Nikki, c’mon already. I’ve no doubt somebody at NBC deserves your ire, but this research is meaningless — if anything, it may be counter-indicative. Look up “Friends” at thesmokinggun. You’d think it was a snuff film from the audience reaction. Seinfeld tested in the tank. Ricky Gervais has said in interviews that the original “Office” tested among the lowest in BBC history. On the other hand I wrote a show a few years ago that tested “through the roof”…but I (and the rest of America who eventually voted with their remotes) knew it was a mess. Examples like these are very much the rule rather than the exception when it comes to comedies. Dramas may be different, although it’s hard to imagine why they would be.
This audience research with the dials and the focus groups is very expensive and consistently proves to be worthless, yet the studios and the networks KEEP DOING IT. It has many obvious problems: 1) 30-40 strangers watch the show as a group. This is not how people normally consume TV. 2) While they are watching it as a group, they each turn a dial to indicate how much they like it MOMENT BY MOMENT. This has no correlation to anything in real life; people do not evaluate their happiness or lack thereof in this way. 3) Most importantly, during testing they are watching the show from an active, analytical perspective rather than being immersed in the world the characters inhabit; in other words they are particularly aware of watching a product in which some actors say lines that people wrote and cameras recorded.
Okay, I’m done with this, except to say that it’s an area that could use some serious investigative reporting that asks the question: Why do they continue to spend millions of dollars on testing every year if the testing does not indicate whether or not people will like the show?
Testing only captures how you feel when you see a show once; I was in the testing audience for ‘King of Queens’ and I hated it. Shows you how much I know.
Sometimes you have to catch comedies a couple of times before their rhythm sets in. I never got into Friends until it was in syndication and I caught it while making dinner night after night.
Amy is whip smart and will land on her feet no matter what happens.
Analysis by Marketing & Research always makes comedy funnier.
Now the folks at NBC need to get back to work polishing up the scripts for derivative copies of old hits like Seinfeld, The Cosby Show and Cheers.
Haters (on Nikki) say what??? The report makes some valid points — likeability is not a bad thing, nor need it take away from a character’s edge. Ari Gold? Angry, douchey but ikable. George Costanza? Fat, ugly, but Likable. One of the creators of the office (and I’m spacing on the name) said that the only way the show would work is if they “had hope for the characters.” Which means that they have to be likable, even if it’s just in a teeny, frustratingly tiny way.
And if that’s not the case for Parks and Rec, then something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Amy should not have left SNL.
“Look how Greenzo’s testing. They love him in every demographic: colored people, broads, fairies, commies…gosh we’ve got to update these forms.” ~ Jack Donaghy
I kind-of want this show to bomb, so just Daniels and Schur can go back and focus on “The Office” which is slowly losing its identity. Poehler is a good actress and she can get work elsewhere. It’s not like she and Arnett are struggling actors or anything. And quite frankly, I could care less about Jones. She’s not a comedic actress. She bored the life out of me when she was on “The Office” and she’ll probably bore the life out of me with this show.
This whole thing reminds me of that TV Set movie w/ David Duchovny. Sigourney Weaver’s character running around messing up the whole show by trying to make it something it was never supposed to be. Focus groups and especially that dial test procedure seem to be a ridiculous way to “research” a show’s overall ability to entertain.
Once again we see the failure of creativity because nets keep using the same game plan for production. They go to the same tired friends of friends and close the door to new voices.
They buy Kings from a Heroes writer when they show is doing good and it’s a piece of crap. They buy this show from a writer on The Office and it’s shit as well.
Black people have disappeared from primetime relegated to backup positions on shows. Quietly the last shows were canceled with new sitcoms coming because those work so well.
This is how we die, people.
Nikki,
The fact that you published this information is both transparent and low-class. Shame on you.
The commercial for this made me not want to watch it. I couldn’t care less about the tests… it looks totally and completely lame.
This is a cool “get,” Nikki.
Nice work.
The script was terrible but I will still tune in.
its really sad that you went to thin level nikki. it makes me sad. of course ben sucks, but greg daniels and michael schur and super talented and super nice guys. a rare double in the tv business. this show will overcome the idiots in testing, and the idiots at nbc….
What is the point of this exercise, airing NBC’s laundry (dirty or otherwise) here? This is part of the creative process (whether we like it or not) and should remain internal business. I’ve had my ass handed to me in the testing stage, but thank god it remained private. It’s a kick in the teeth and I can only imagine how lousy it feels to have it shared with the world.
You have got to be kidding, Nikki. Why on earth would you publish these reports? So you can post a big “TOLDJA” when the first ep ratings don’t exceed expectations? This is why sitcoms die on the vine — please don’t add pesticides like these posts.
You know what pilot tested best when I was at NBC? “Emeril”, and Zucker used the testing to force it onto the schedule telling everyone who would listen “Look at the focus groups, this guy is a tv star!!” See if you can remember how that worked out, three episodes and then…BAM!
As Peter Tolan once said, “If you want to know what a bunch of housewives and skinheads from the valley think of your show, go ahead and test it, but that won’t tell you if it’s a hit…”
Well. Thank god they’re not pandering to the lowest common denominator in determining what’s working and what’s not. Can we vote the less spike-dependant Executives off the show? Now, there’s a show I’d watch.
The problem with PARKS AND RECREATION is the idea isn’t based on a smart, funny, and engaging BBC original.
That way, NBC could dumb it down, stock it with caricatures and catch-phrases, and then call it a “hit” when it came in 37th every week.
The highest testing pilot in tv research history was “Here’s Boomer,” in case anyone was curious. I don’t have high hopes for this show, but I base it on reasons other than a bs research report.
Testing is the great bane of our industry simply because it empowers a group of people, paid to be there because they either have nothing else to do, or are savvy enough about film and television that they do it to mess around with the unduly impressionable lemmings sitting on the other side of the glass window. If they really knew that those lemmings were stuffing their faces with so much deli that they’ve forgotten to watch the audiences reaction leat alone the graphs on the television, maybe stop masking their reactions with faux “honest reactions”. We have schedules built on testing and not on the clear minded personal expresson of creators empowered by executives to do something defining. History has proven that decisions made by committee and not true leadership, have invariably failed. I know, I know, testing can be helpful with comedy and jokes and can show that a story point isn’t landin in Act 4, so I don’t advocate for it’s complete elimination, but to learn that, “The last 6:30 (approx) suffer from lower positives and higher negatives as “slower” and “more tedious” scenes are featured.” is quite frankly banal and tedious unto itself. Like everything today, as people operate in fear, you get what your testing allows you to have, and that’s a pretty sad state of programming.
Wow, I’m glad I’m not the only one who has a degree in Parks and Recreation. (I’m not really all that proud of it, but hey). I’m disappointed that this show might not make it. Agree with above posters, the profession has possibilities that are perfect for a comedy. I worked at a yearly Mighty Mud Mania (which is exactly what it sounds like) in Phoenix.in July. Summer camps with the most obnoxious kids, onerous city regulations.Hope this can be turned around, Amy is aces.
To air out private testing data like this is truly low. You should be deeply ashamed for posting this. It shows a true lack of class, you cunty blog bitch.
Heh -
You mean like “30 Rock”? What does that come in every week? How “real” are any charachter on that show (except maybe Tracy Morgan)?
Nikki -
I agree with most of the commentators that this was an unnecessary and I feel a misleading post. “Problems”(IMO) would be: Amy not getting along with Greg or Mike or Amy not getting along with castmates or Greg and Mike not getting along or if they were doing massive reshoots or recasting.
Unless DHD is going to become like Aintitcoolnews and start doing this to all TV shows (and we can see how EVERY show stacks up in research).
“The fact that you published this information is both transparent and low-class. Shame on you.”
Gee, journalist, I can feel the red-faced shame starting to burn up my noggin…NOT. The other posters are right, when connections & personal blowbacks start to trump talent, it needs to be pointed out. So Greg Daniels is a nice guy, I get it. But even nice guys will start to have their creative axis shift for the worse when enough smoke is blown up their ass. A lot of people think it’s a lame idea and now some testing has confirmed that. Amy Poehler is truly talented, so why not let HER pitch ideas? How about an idea for a PT television show by a woman created for PT television’s main audience: women? (Just not another forum for male-boss bashing, please.)
Considering that the U.S. version of THE OFFICE is a pale imitation of the original U.K. THE OFFICE it seems a little silly to wring our hands that this series is a weak imitation. As the THE OFFICE has shown, weak derivatives can do big business.
The (U.S.) OFFICE does not do “big business.” Its ad rates are commensurate with its mediocre ratings, and it had an extraordinarily low sale to syndication.
Don’t believe the hype.
I can’t believe you put this on your site. These tests are bullshit and rarely conclusive of any show being potentially good or not. What a nightmare for these people, already in development hell, having their tests published and then commented on by people here as if the tests are just gossip truth.
Mister or Missus “Go Blue Devils” Writes
“when connections & personal blowbacks start to trump talent, it needs to be pointed out.”
Which does not apply here because you’re talking about leaked testing data on a pilot, not any actually creditable info on the pilot itself.
Then you say “A lot of people think it’s a lame idea and now some testing has confirmed that.” No it hasn’t. Idiot. That’s the only thing in your post dumber than you making a lame “NOT” joke. Jesus. I want to puke.
Nikki, you are smart enough to know what bullshit testing data is.
You posted this to show off that you have juice.
If these people made a bad show, it will be very clear when it airs and they will suffer greatly. This, however is bullshit. It’s not fucking finished yet, you asshole.
I am blown away that you posted this. You’ve lost a long time fan.
Louis CK took the words right out of my mouth.
Nikki,
I agree with those who wonder why you would post a research report. Do you want to hurt the show? Greg Daniels is one of the nicest, smartest guys in the business. Let him do his job. Why don’t you do yours and look for some real news to report. I have lost some respect for you as a “journalist.”
Karma’s a bitch and so is Amy Poehler. Who the hell decided this hideous creature is either amusing or talented? Someone who doesn’t know their asshole from Zucker’s mouth.
Might have been a mistake.
If she had gotten a push in the direction of movies for a while, and something clicked, the worst case scenario is that she could have always gone back to television.
Or another network could have put together something really original around her to accommodate the multiplicity of talents. Took some time. Not – off SNL; onto new sitcom in a matter of months.
I suppose it’s possible that she could become like Steve Carrell and use the TV franchise to grow a big movie career.
But tough to do for a woman unfortunately.
As it is though, how can this new show fare in the ratings any better than “The Office?”
Which may mean that NBC is perfectly content to have a mere stable of Hulu “internet” names that get sampled in catch-as-catch-can “clip bites.”
That’s where I watch “The Office” and I suspect that a lot of other people do too.
Amy is adorable, a genuine artist, and deserves to be platformed not dumped. I’m not sure a derivative of a marginally successful show that’s a re-make of a British phenom (and deservedly so) is cutting edge show biz rocket science.
We shall see.
“The Office” has become predictable and tiresome and lazy. They don’t even bother to make L.A. look like a Scranton, PA. anymore.
NBC Standards and Practices should make “surreal” a no-no for sitcoms. “30 Rock,” in a very short period of time, is starting to make “Third Rock from the Sun” look like documentary. (No aspersion meant on “Third Rock” which was a weekly French farce from outer space not afraid of good-old-fashioned slapstick gracefully performed by real pros.)
Tina Fey. We get the formula. Three plots not two to keep everything moving at a brisk clip – therefore the genuine potential for characterization went out the window – rather into it – the computer screen. (It bears the logic of a thirty minute television commercial. It’s funny but has become TOO “over the top” I think.)
There’s a REASON why CBS continues to do well on Monday nights since “Everybody Loves Raymond” departed.
Perhaps characterization is not as applicable to “stunt” programming; truthfully more thought goes into those really creepy promos of Zucker’s.
Plus – you see the promo – a lot of time you don’t even have to watch the show.
Everything sounds like it’s going to be a.) a murder; or b.)a Bar Mitzvah!
Unfortunately it’s usually neither – just an overhyped derivative more-of-the-same blah morass.
Best of luck to Amy though. In terms of talent in every way the real deal. A lovely person. SNL aside, an actress not a stand-up or a writer. An improv genius. The material she’s given is key.
And therein lies the chase.
The real question is : when is Second City’s Mike Nichols going to direct her on Broadway like Gilda and Whoopi? (Amy’s better than both.)
He would know EXACTLY what to do with her in theatre and on film.
We have yet to see Amy’s potential in drama too and that is definitely there as well big time like a Cher or an Ann-Margret (how Nichols saw in them what nobody else saw, etc., amongst many others. Nichols is a Hollywood casting great perhaps the greatest.)
Would love to see her take on a dramatic role at any rate. A juicy one that isn’t hyped and therefore lets her stretch.
“Greg Daniels is a nice guy.”
Really?
Have you ever worked with him?
I’ve worked in primary research, and whoever above me that said shows never get negative feedback like this is either a liar or high.
Pick one.
Have you ever met the people who they get to sit down and test these shows in front of? They aren’t the brightest bulbs in the Home Depot, let me tell you that, and in the time that I’ve been away from it I’m sure the Americans that get hoodwinked into sitting down to watch TV (mostly while on vacation in So Cal so that the regional demos can be filled) are even, uh … dimmer.
A smart comedy could never get by an audience of average Americans (’Mericuns, as they call themselves), they don’t have the critical thinking skills to find the funny.
I used to write these type of reports. They can be prety formulaic because execs ask about the dials, etc. What isn’t really reflected in what is posted here are the recommendations – sort of buried, but not fleshed out. I hope the actual report has the recommendation section, because the best research of this type draws conclusions that are actionable for the series. For example, the Seinfeld pilot report, which I have read in its entirety, has a recommendations section that nailed the issues the pilot had. In fact, almost all the recommendations led to adjustments to the series made gradually over the first year!!!!!
I have to echo the same sentiments–why publish these notes? Totally pointless for viewers AND media insiders. All it does is perpetuate the horrible tv network/media B.S. that a show has to have instantly high ratings OR ELSE GET CANCELLED AFTER 2 EPISODES. It’s disgusting. Give the darn show a chance. You’re so quick to criticize NBC. I know Ben is a complete tosser, but why oh why are you so obsessed with him & Zucker? Looking back in your archives, you seem to have a vendetta against the peacock…
Karma’s a bitch and so is Amy Poehler.”
Nice quote, but when did human beings become so damm nasty. It is me, am I the last one still stuck in seventies love, eighties lets make some money together and nineties we can survive. Amy may not be the nicest blonde on the block, but then again I never met her. But hey she didn’t tell my buddies on the envelope.com to stick it like Tina Fey, she can rap and acts black so she can’t be too bad a person. I wish her well, and maybe just maybe they will make a baby mama 2 with the child talking like Roseanne.
In the preview commercials, the show looks really really stupid.
I don’t know Nikki, but reports are leaked all the time so I disagree with everyone raking her over the coals. If the show flops it will be most likely because no one will know it’s on as NBC has the lowest viewership so most people won’t see the promos.
Gosh MAYBE there should have been some vetting prior to this pilot being tested….oh…yeah….the BIG STUDIO MOGULS VETTED IT….those guys and gals are so smart. Witty too. Dumb too.
I don’t watch the office because of what I have seen it is ridiculously banal, boring, and stupid. Amy needs to return to the SNL Weekend update desk and leave this boorish blagha to die a quick death. I can understanding grasping for straws in this economy, but this is too far a stretch even for the makers of “the Office.” Back to the drawing bored (sic).
The Smoking Gun had a report of a focus group reaction to “Friends” that said it would do poorly. Ha.
NBC is what happens when Boobus Americanus strives to do something with their lives – they’ve ended up here. Ignorance, group think, all the very worst. This show, the showcase of NBC’s efforts, is a stunning failure on nearly every level one can think of.
Peter, come get your Principal…
Audience testing. Gotta love it.
I once worked on a show that screened very well, audience response scoring several points over and above expectations throughout, save for one scene that was registering “just” fifteen percent over expectations. The entire focus of the next meeting we had was “so how do we fix the scene that dipped?”
Chin up, guys.
NBC is what happens when Boobus Americanus strives to do something with their lives – they’ve ended up here. Ignorance, group think, all the very worst. This show, the showcase of NBC’s efforts, is a stunning failure on nearly every level one can think of.
Peter, come get your Principal…
Comment by B. Real — March 25, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
That pretty much sums it up.
Really indicative of Silverman, Zucker, et al’s colossal stupidity– Casting Poelher as a Tina Fey (Liz Lemon)clone instead of capitalizing on Poelher’s strength playing ignorant characters that are much smarter than they initially appear, aka “Baby Mama”.
Sorry Amy, maybe someday they’ll actually get you.
Black people have disappeared from prime time television. It’s a shame because they do bring something unique to the show. My Name Is Earl, 30 Rock, and The Office have black main characters. These shows are real and funny. Good for them!!!
Watch the promos, people. It’s…just…not…funny!
The one with Amy and Rashida is particularly bad, showing Amy ad libbing her heart out and Rashida showing that she has virtually no comedic ability at all. Totally painful to watch.
Good plan, NBC. Take people from “The Office”, start a rip off show and watch as they both quickly die. No wonder the major networks are dying off like the dinosaurs.
I really wanted to like this, but it’s not funny. See, here’s the thing, comedies are really supposed to make you laugh. That one “minor flaw” may be this show’s undoing.