The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

... if it had only been on HBO...

ThirithThirith Registered User regular
edited March 2011 in Debate and/or Discourse
I'm currently watching Kings (for the first time) and am enjoying it a lot, even though I already know that it's one of those doomed series that ended before their time had come. It's intelligently written, it's largely got good to great actors and it's the perfect series to fill the hole left by Battlestar Galactica when that one ended.

At the same time, though, it's a series that could have been better. While some of the actors are pitch perfect (e.g. McShane, Cox, Baker, Walker), some are mediocre at best (and next to their betters come across as downright bad at times). It also feels like a series that should've been on HBO (or at least the idealised HBO that never existed, that let Deadwood, Rome and Carnivale finish their stories). It should have been possible for them to use whatever language they deemed necessary; I'm not saying it should've been saturated with "cocksuckers", so to speak, but they should have been able to make use of it when it fits. The cast should've been more consistently good to great. The episodes shouldn't have been tied to the standard TV 'hour' length which is closer to 42 minutes. And chances are that an audience reared on series as the ones mentioned above would've been more willing to watch the series.

What other series are there that are good, but that weren't able to live up to their potential for one reason or another? That would've been perfect, if only the star had been a better actor? If only the production values had been higher? If only they didn't have to deliver 20+ episodes per season? If only they'd ended after the fifth season, because everything that followed just wasn't as good?

webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Thirith on
«13

Posts

  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Firefly because fox ripped it apart, asked too much from it, then cancelled it. Indeed Firefly is sort of the defacto reference point for how easy it is for production companies to ruin everything.

    Galactica ended pretty poorly as well. This was due to the writers not having a clue how to end it. The result was an episode entirely devoted to explaining everything in one go, and a deus ex machina episode for closure.

    I also thought lost ended pretty terribly, also heavily reliant on godly forces to work around it.

    WMain00 on
  • wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Kings was incredibly mishandled. They showed the pilot something like 2 months before they originally aired the show, then they had it on Sunday... then they moved it to Saturday... then they took it off air at one point for a few more months... then brought it back at some other time randomly.

    It was horrible trying to follow it. But it was a truly fantastic show.

    wazilla on
    Psn:wazukki
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I know that a lot of people hated it, if only for the fact that it was a remake of a british show, but Life on Mars was fantastic.

    It was going strong as one of ABC's highest rated shows...but they decided to give it a mid-season hiatus of 2 months.

    When they brought it back, they put it on a different night at a different time and didn't make any commercials promoting the change.

    Needless to say that it died a horrible death ratings-wise and what followed was probably one of th worst endings to a series one could imagine.

    Still annnoyed.


    Oh, I liked Happy Town, as well.

    TehSpectre on
    9u72nmv0y64e.jpg
  • edited March 2011
    This content has been removed.

  • -SPI--SPI- Osaka, JapanRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Does that really count though? Because a version of life on mars that lived up to all it's potential already exists.

    The US version was a prime example of why US remakes of excellent UK shows is almost universally a catastrophically bad idea. The ending... fucking hell.

    -SPI- on
  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I honestly think Kings was too intelligent and high-brow of a concept for network television audiences. NBC's treatment of it certainly didn't help, either.

    Firefly on HBO would have been nice, but I think SciFi would have been a better fit. Sci-Fi as a genre has never really had much of a presence on the subscription channels. However, I think that, had HBO picked it up, Firefly had enough elements from other genres to bring non-sci-fi types into the mix. It wasn't a nerdy, jargony show like Star Trek and the general feel of the show was lighthearted and fun.

    If TNT hadn't picked it up, I'd have added Southland to the list. I'm happy enough with just having new episodes, though.

    It doesn't exist, but I always thought that a Planescape: Torment adaption on HBO could be spectacular. It'd at the very least have to be a mini series, but I think a 3 season run would be sufficient to develop the plot and characters adequately and tell the whole story.

    Bullio on
    steam_sig.png
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    NBC advertised Kings as 'what if america had a king'

    which wasn't the premise or story at all

    Casual Eddy on
  • edited March 2011
    This content has been removed.

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2011
    Oh, if only network program directors didn't sabotage the shit out of each other, allowing us to have some consistent programming!

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • -SPI--SPI- Osaka, JapanRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I'd probably have to say Jericho. That's a prime example of squandered potential, and it every so often peered out here and there just enough to make the whole thing more disappointing.

    -SPI- on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    NBC advertised Kings as 'what if america had a king'

    which wasn't the premise or story at all

    I have indeed found this surprising.

    I mean the idea of a modern monarchy is pretty good, and the show is good, but it's not "what if America was a monarchy".

    It was probably a bit too subtle and complex for them to advertise it to the automatic obvious audience. I mean, a modern era retelling of the story of David from the bible is an awesome idea but probably not something the fundies want to watch.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2011
    I thought Kings was quite good. But the characters didn't make much sense to me and changed goals and behavior all around the place all the time.

    Kill this guy, don't kill him I love him, kill him he sucks, don't kill him though. Etc.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Thirith wrote: »
    What other series are there that are good, but that weren't able to live up to their potential for one reason or another? That would've been perfect, if only the star had been a better actor? If only the production values had been higher? If only they didn't have to deliver 20+ episodes per season? If only they'd ended after the fifth season, because everything that followed just wasn't as good?

    Two series instantly spring to mind.

    The Unit. A series about a Delta Force team that examines their missions, as well as the impact their job has on their family. It was better than it had any right being while it was on CBS, and for the most part I love the show that was produced, but it just could've been so much better. When you've got David Mamet and Shawn Ryan (The Wire, The Shield)as executive producers (Mamet writing a large amount of the show, too), and the intense, gritty combat it just screams to have been made on cable.

    The other show is Jericho. The premise held a lot of promise, but cheap sets, poor scripts and locations in southern California just took me out of the show.

    RocketSauce on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    The Stargate franchise needed a breather before SG:U. Premature exploration.

    MKR on
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Kings never existed

    It never existed and theres no reason to talk about it

    because it never existed, which means my heart could have never been broken by an awesome show being screwed over and murdered by network politics

    Buttcleft on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2011
    WMain00 wrote: »
    I also thought lost ended pretty terribly, also heavily reliant on godly forces to work around it.

    Problem, though, was that it ended exactly as the writers wanted it to. They got the schedule and the run-time they wanted, they had (at the end) little producer meddling, and they had, as I understand, the freedom to do with it as they wanted, along with a good budget and some pretty talented actors.

    If it were moved to HBO, the only difference would be that we saw Kate's boobies every episode.

    ...

    Okay, yeah, it should've moved to HBO.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Just a quick note for people not to be too literal about the HBO thing. I don't think Firefly would've benefited from the HBO style, although I don't see how it could've fared worse than at the hand of Fox.

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    *Obligatory mention of Arrested Development.*

    Demerdar on
    y6GGs3o.gif
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Lost was always a show I felt would've benefited from being on a network like HBO. There would've been much less filler allowing for a tighter, more compact storyline(it was a mess at times). Some of the characters could've had more bite as well, such as Sawyer or Sayid. We knew they were despicable(or had been) but the lack of foul language and true brutality sort of dampened that aspect. They might've been able to lock down certain actors as well with the shorter shooting times, instead of having characters come and go.

    HBO also seems to have access to more talented directors than network television. For example in The Wire, a few episodes were directed by Agnieszka Holland, who made a film I really appreciate named Olivier Olivier.

    Lucid on
  • smeejsmeej Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Party Down.

    Don't have any evidence other than who the crap watches Starz? I think it would have done better literally anywhere else.

    Supernatural is still on, but I think it would benefit from swearing and boobies. I've seen Jim Beaver curse, sir, and it is glorious.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • meekermeeker Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Poor, poor Defying Gravity...

    meeker on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    wazilla wrote: »
    Kings was incredibly mishandled. They showed the pilot something like 2 months before they originally aired the show, then they had it on Sunday... then they moved it to Saturday... then they took it off air at one point for a few more months... then brought it back at some other time randomly.

    It was horrible trying to follow it. But it was a truly fantastic show.

    The biggest problem with how Kings was handled (and I've said this in several threads now) was that they ignored the one market that would have lapped it up - the Christian community. Remember, Kings was a modernization of the story of Saul and David, yet there was no specific outreach done to push the show on these merits.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Any Stephen King adaptation, well really ANY horror adaptation. How can you make anything resembling a competent horror movie if your Monster can't actually cause real pain/suffering/agony? (Imagine a made for TV Hellraiser, that's how I feel about the Made for TV version of IT....it was good but it could've been so much more if it were allowed to be brutal like the original book.)

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Captain TragedyCaptain Tragedy Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    smeej wrote: »
    Party Down.

    Don't have any evidence other than who the crap watches Starz? I think it would have done better literally anywhere else.

    Funny thing is, I read an interview with the creators where they said that they pitched the show to HBO, but the network was only interested in it if they changed it to an Entourage clone about a bunch of young actors trying to break into Hollywood, with the catering plot in the background (in other words, completely missing the fucking point of the show).

    Say what you will about Starz treatment of the show and its short lifespan, but in this case, it would have probably been worse if it was on HBO.

    Captain Tragedy on
  • November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I wish they would bring back the mini-series for some of these properties. Lost, BSG, The Event, V, Kings and Jericho could have been really tight 12-hour productions.

    November Fifth on
  • VistiVisti Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I wish they would bring back the mini-series for some of these properties. Lost, BSG, The Event, V, Kings and Jericho could have been really tight 12-hour productions.

    Yessssss.

    Visti on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2011
    Any Stephen King adaptation, well really ANY horror adaptation. How can you make anything resembling a competent horror movie if your Monster can't actually cause real pain/suffering/agony? (Imagine a made for TV Hellraiser, that's how I feel about the Made for TV version of IT....it was good but it could've been so much more if it were allowed to be brutal like the original book.)

    The amount of sex and violence you can get away with on standard network television is as much as necessary for any show that isn't explicitly about graphic sex and violence. Heroes routinely showed people chopped in half. Fringe has folks explode. You can see people fucking like rabbits as long as you don't actually show a boob. And recall all the myriad ways Jack Bauer caused pain-slash-suffering-slash-agony on 24.

    Pretty much the only thing you can't do on network television is say "fuck" or "shit". Which gets in the way of some shows, sure, but not all that often.

    The reason King's made-for-TV adaptations are generally weak has to do with budget and talent, not the inability to show someone stabbed through the face in gratuitous slow-mo.

    Now, there are shows that need the freedom to incorporate elements that are a no-go for networks. Sex and the City and Californication, for example, need explicit language and sex in order to make the comedy work; the shows are specifically dependent on complete what-the-fuck graphic depictions and descriptions. Dexter needs the freedom to show graphic violence in order to get us into Dexter's world. Sopranos needed the freedom to say "fuck" all the time, because a realistic portrayal of that mob culture includes judicious use of profanity.

    But mostly, when a show would "benefit" from being on HBO or Showtime, it's not because they need boobies and intestines, it's because they need the 13, 60-minute episode format and the bigger budget the shows command. And those things could be realized on network television, they just aren't because... well, because they aren't.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2011
    Now I'm just imagining the Bunk and McNulty investigation scene, how it would have been like with five minutes of complete silence. :)

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Honk wrote: »
    Now I'm just imagining the Bunk and McNulty investigation scene, how it would have been like with five minutes of complete silence. :)

    "Fruit."
    "Fruit!"
    "Motherfruiter."
    "Fruitin' A."

    Astaereth on
    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2011
    Fruit me!

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    smeej wrote: »
    Party Down.

    Don't have any evidence other than who the crap watches Starz? I think it would have done better literally anywhere else.

    Funny thing is, I read an interview with the creators where they said that they pitched the show to HBO, but the network was only interested in it if they changed it to an Entourage clone about a bunch of young actors trying to break into Hollywood, with the catering plot in the background (in other words, completely missing the fucking point of the show).

    Say what you will about Starz treatment of the show and its short lifespan, but in this case, it would have probably been worse if it was on HBO.

    Im pretty sure I read that the show was canceled because it was designed as a vehicle for the actors, and after 2 seasons they started getting actual roles. Mainly, whats his name is now on Parks and Rec and whats her name is now on Glee.

    Im not sure how much ratings played a role since who has Starz anyway. I watched all of Party Down through Netflix (actually I watch all my Starz programing through Netflix, maybe Starz should just start making shows for Netflix).

    emp123 on
  • TheHopelessGamerTheHopelessGamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    In my experience they pretty much do. To the best of my knowledge Starz has produced two shows: Party Down and Spartacus. Both shows I watch every week they put an episode out (which is actually kind of weird when you don't have cable and only watch instant watch/DVD collections of whole seasons), and both were two of my favorite shows in recent memory. I'm super stoked for Camelot just because I know it's a Starz production. Kind of nuts when you think about it.

    On a sidenote, have they made any other shows? They seem to do quite well.

    TheHopelessGamer on
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Camelot is the one with Eva Green right? or is that the HBO show? Either way, Im down for any show that promises some Eva Green boob.

    emp123 on
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Any Stephen King adaptation, well really ANY horror adaptation. How can you make anything resembling a competent horror movie if your Monster can't actually cause real pain/suffering/agony? (Imagine a made for TV Hellraiser, that's how I feel about the Made for TV version of IT....it was good but it could've been so much more if it were allowed to be brutal like the original book.)

    The amount of sex and violence you can get away with on standard network television is as much as necessary for any show that isn't explicitly about graphic sex and violence. Heroes routinely showed people chopped in half. Fringe has folks explode. You can see people fucking like rabbits as long as you don't actually show a boob. And recall all the myriad ways Jack Bauer caused pain-slash-suffering-slash-agony on 24.

    Pretty much the only thing you can't do on network television is say "fuck" or "shit". Which gets in the way of some shows, sure, but not all that often.


    But mostly, when a show would "benefit" from being on HBO or Showtime, it's not because they need boobies and intestines, it's because they need the 13, 60-minute episode format and the bigger budget the shows command. And those things could be realized on network television, they just aren't because... well, because they aren't.
    I'd have to disagree. Beyond visual depictions of sex and violence, network television is somewhat less challenging and/or mature in its portrayal of many different themes or realities. For example, gay relationships are for the most part done quite poorly and though not quite homophobic, there is still a shying away from a non stereotypical portrayal. I think there's still a limit to the level of physical intimacy they're willing to display in terms of gay affection.

    Likewise, when it comes to some of the harsher brutalities of human existence, network television still plays it safe. Not purely in terms of the actual visual depiction, but also in the implications. This is things such as rape, child abuse/sexuality. A program on a major network will often use these things purely as a major dramatic event or plot point, leaving a disconnect from the actual occurrence. Law and Order SVU is a perfect example. A show revolving around these two things, yet it is played from a safe distance.

    I remember in season 3 of The Wire, a character named Cutty had just left prison and while trying to get involved in the game again he approached a gangster to get set up. In the background of the alley they were conversing in there was a group of people, a few guys and a girl. The girl was on her knees, and though you couldn't quite make out more than silhouettes it was obvious what was going on. It left you wondering who this person is, what's going on. It left you disturbed beyond just the visuals and idea, it was that you knew you wouldn't get any answers.

    There's almost always a satisfaction guaranteed type of feeling from the majority of network television.

    Lucid on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    My problem with US network television is the fucking comercials! half hour comedies? 1 hour dramas? HA! more like 20 to 40 minutes. Its bad enough that you try to tell a complex engaging story in 40 minutes, but for every two minutes of storytime you get 1 minute of comercials. Right in the middle of the story!

    It destroys any attempt at quality when every 5 minutes you tell the audience they are unfit to live without the new brand of deoderant.

    HBO's main advantage is that its stuff is made to be seen without comercials.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • XaevXaev Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    My problem with US network television is the fucking comercials! half hour comedies? 1 hour dramas? HA! more like 20 to 40 minutes. Its bad enough that you try to tell a complex engaging story in 40 minutes, but for every two minutes of storytime you get 1 minute of comercials. Right in the middle of the story!

    It destroys any attempt at quality when every 5 minutes you tell the audience they are unfit to live without the new brand of deoderant.

    HBO's main advantage is that its stuff is made to be seen without comercials.

    Really, this has gotten worse over the last twenty years or so. I own the entire series run of Star Trek: TNG on DVD, and as the show goes on, you go from episode lengths being around 51-52 minutes in the first season (1987-88) to being 43-44 minutes in the final season (1993-1994) which is barely longer than what you see with today's TV.

    Xaev on
    Steam - Lysus || XBL - Veax || PSN - Lysus || WoW - Lysus (Korgath - US) || Guild Wars - Lysus Yjirkar || Starcraft II - Lysus.781 || League of Legends - Lysus
    Feel free to add me on whatever network, it's always more fun to play with people than alone
  • smeejsmeej Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    emp123 wrote: »
    Camelot is the one with Eva Green right? or is that the HBO show? Either way, Im down for any show that promises some Eva Green boob.
    Yes, it's the Starz one and yes, Eva Green boob. Not a confirmation that Camelot has boobs, just agreeing.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
  • Captain TragedyCaptain Tragedy Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    smeej wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Camelot is the one with Eva Green right? or is that the HBO show? Either way, Im down for any show that promises some Eva Green boob.
    Yes, it's the Starz one and yes, Eva Green boob. Not a confirmation that Camelot has boobs, just agreeing.

    They showed a preview of the 1st episode of Camelot, and can confirm Eva Green boob, along with other boob of lesser, yet still very high quality.

    Captain Tragedy on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    I still maintain that had The Middleman been on any other network it would have thrived

    It was a fantastic show, but really, who watches ABC Family?

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • smeejsmeej Registered User regular
    edited March 2011
    smeej wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Camelot is the one with Eva Green right? or is that the HBO show? Either way, Im down for any show that promises some Eva Green boob.
    Yes, it's the Starz one and yes, Eva Green boob. Not a confirmation that Camelot has boobs, just agreeing.

    They showed a preview of the 1st episode of Camelot, and can confirm Eva Green boob, along with other boob of lesser, yet still very high quality.
    Gonna be the best show ever.

    smeej on
    IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
Sign In or Register to comment.