Critics and audiences alike were disheartened--if unsurprised--by FX's decision to cancel the critically-adored but low-rated freshman drama series Terriers this morning.
The announcement about the fate of Terriers, created by Ted Griffin and executive produced by Shawn Ryan, was made via a PR email to press members, which promised further information and a statement from FX president John Landgraf at an unprecedented telephone press conference later today.
Many of us were curious to see just what Landgraf had to say about the network's decision not to bring Terriers back for a second season (and why he was willing to host this conference call), though the writing was on the wall for the drama, considering the ratings chart that FX sent out this morning, which compared Terriers's thirteen-episode run with that of fellow FX series Dirt, Damages, The Riches, and Over There, all of which were canceled by FX yet all had significantly higher ratings than Terriers (more than two times), particularly in the key Adults 18-49 demographic.
(It's worth noting that Damages was rescued from the scrapyard by DirecTV's The 101 Network, which will air the next two seasons exclusively.)
Landgraf said that he had met with Ted Griffin, Shawn Ryan, and Tim Minear on Friday to have a "postmortem" for the show and told them that the network would not be picking up Terriers for a second season. Landgraf called New York Magazine's decision to name Terriers as the third best show of 2010 "bittersweet."
The reason behind the call with press? An effort at transparency, which is something that Landgraf believes in both internally and externally. Given the support the show received from the creative community, Landgraf didn't want press to speculate about why the show was axed.
Landgraf did take some umbrage at the notion that the terrier-centric billboard campaigns in New York and Los Angeles affected the ratings (he went as far as saying that FX's marketing team had unfairly taken the blame for the series' failure), particularly as the on-air campaign tested well with the network's 600-person focus group, who felt that it captured the tone, setting, and plot of Terriers.
"For whatever reason the show didn't work, it wasn't because the promos didn't show Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James..."
So what did the postmortem findings show about why Terriers failed?
"People felt the show was compatible with the FX brand but dissimilar to other FX shows," said Landgraf about the postmortem he had with the series' producers. "The things that were wonderful about the show were subtle... It had a subtle charm that crept up on you. [But] I don't know if subtlety is something that the American public is buying in droves today."
(Interestingly, the focus group testing showed that the perception was that Terriers was "less sexy [and] less edgy" than FX's other programming.)
The numbers, according to Landgraf, further supported this: Terriers was losing 47 percent of its lead-in audience an dropped an average of 16 percent over the course of its hour run.
"What would I have done differently? At a minimum, I'd probably call it 'Terriers: PIs," said Landgraf, chuckling.
"The show failed to launch," he continued. "It was the weakest premiere that FX has ever had... One of the luxuries that cablers have that broadcasters don't is that we could leave it on-air... You put things out there, you give people the opportunity to find it and sample it, and talk to their friends."
He pointed out that FX's upcoming drama Lights Out is unique in the respect that it's the only show featuring an ex-boxer trying to make it, whereas there is a lot of familiarity with buddy private detectives. Clearly, FX couldn't make the public feel that Terriers was innately different or superior to those similar series that came before.
"There's a relatively low correlation between excellence and commercial success," said Landgraf, who went on to say that FX is committed to finding the overlap. "We just try to make really good shows."
"Part of what was great about Terriers was its integrity and its subtlety. Season Two would have been great and it would have been better than the first. But the question was, can we at FX justify [a second season] as a business?"
Despite being heartbroken about FX's decision, I do applaud Landgraf for taking the time to make the network's decision-making process transparent and speaking to press about the reasons and rationale behind the cancellation. Series, even beloved ones, get axed all the time without the sensitivity and grace shown by FX in this case. ("I'm glad that some people saw it and loved it," he said courteously thanking members of the press for supporting the show and writing about it. "That's not nothing.")
"One of the things we've done well is take risks and continue to put shows on the air," said Langraf. "The reality is that this is hard when you're aiming for creative excellence... and commercial success," said Landgraf, somberly.
"This isn't the first really good show that we've had to cancel and it won't be the last."
The announcement about the fate of Terriers, created by Ted Griffin and executive produced by Shawn Ryan, was made via a PR email to press members, which promised further information and a statement from FX president John Landgraf at an unprecedented telephone press conference later today.
Many of us were curious to see just what Landgraf had to say about the network's decision not to bring Terriers back for a second season (and why he was willing to host this conference call), though the writing was on the wall for the drama, considering the ratings chart that FX sent out this morning, which compared Terriers's thirteen-episode run with that of fellow FX series Dirt, Damages, The Riches, and Over There, all of which were canceled by FX yet all had significantly higher ratings than Terriers (more than two times), particularly in the key Adults 18-49 demographic.
(It's worth noting that Damages was rescued from the scrapyard by DirecTV's The 101 Network, which will air the next two seasons exclusively.)
Landgraf said that he had met with Ted Griffin, Shawn Ryan, and Tim Minear on Friday to have a "postmortem" for the show and told them that the network would not be picking up Terriers for a second season. Landgraf called New York Magazine's decision to name Terriers as the third best show of 2010 "bittersweet."
The reason behind the call with press? An effort at transparency, which is something that Landgraf believes in both internally and externally. Given the support the show received from the creative community, Landgraf didn't want press to speculate about why the show was axed.
Landgraf did take some umbrage at the notion that the terrier-centric billboard campaigns in New York and Los Angeles affected the ratings (he went as far as saying that FX's marketing team had unfairly taken the blame for the series' failure), particularly as the on-air campaign tested well with the network's 600-person focus group, who felt that it captured the tone, setting, and plot of Terriers.
"For whatever reason the show didn't work, it wasn't because the promos didn't show Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James..."
So what did the postmortem findings show about why Terriers failed?
"People felt the show was compatible with the FX brand but dissimilar to other FX shows," said Landgraf about the postmortem he had with the series' producers. "The things that were wonderful about the show were subtle... It had a subtle charm that crept up on you. [But] I don't know if subtlety is something that the American public is buying in droves today."
(Interestingly, the focus group testing showed that the perception was that Terriers was "less sexy [and] less edgy" than FX's other programming.)
The numbers, according to Landgraf, further supported this: Terriers was losing 47 percent of its lead-in audience an dropped an average of 16 percent over the course of its hour run.
"What would I have done differently? At a minimum, I'd probably call it 'Terriers: PIs," said Landgraf, chuckling.
"The show failed to launch," he continued. "It was the weakest premiere that FX has ever had... One of the luxuries that cablers have that broadcasters don't is that we could leave it on-air... You put things out there, you give people the opportunity to find it and sample it, and talk to their friends."
He pointed out that FX's upcoming drama Lights Out is unique in the respect that it's the only show featuring an ex-boxer trying to make it, whereas there is a lot of familiarity with buddy private detectives. Clearly, FX couldn't make the public feel that Terriers was innately different or superior to those similar series that came before.
"There's a relatively low correlation between excellence and commercial success," said Landgraf, who went on to say that FX is committed to finding the overlap. "We just try to make really good shows."
"Part of what was great about Terriers was its integrity and its subtlety. Season Two would have been great and it would have been better than the first. But the question was, can we at FX justify [a second season] as a business?"
Despite being heartbroken about FX's decision, I do applaud Landgraf for taking the time to make the network's decision-making process transparent and speaking to press about the reasons and rationale behind the cancellation. Series, even beloved ones, get axed all the time without the sensitivity and grace shown by FX in this case. ("I'm glad that some people saw it and loved it," he said courteously thanking members of the press for supporting the show and writing about it. "That's not nothing.")
"One of the things we've done well is take risks and continue to put shows on the air," said Langraf. "The reality is that this is hard when you're aiming for creative excellence... and commercial success," said Landgraf, somberly.
"This isn't the first really good show that we've had to cancel and it won't be the last."
Comments
Very sad to see Terriers go.
Also even though I still think Landgraf is an idiot (Damages cancellation), I will give him credit for having the conference call that was pretty classy.
I agree with most of your assessment.
Television has evolved and and crumbled (paradox) in so many ways.
I think it's frightful that so many people will tune into Dancing.., Real Housewives of whatever city and countless other shows that do not challenge the mind. Call me a snob but many people do not appreciate good television. We also have to deal with the archaic system of the "Nielson."
I haven't given up on FX because of shows such as Justified.
I loved "Terriers" and Landgraf's conference call was a stroke of genius (in the network's mind). Terriers was a critically lauded show with a boutique following. He decided to offer up some explanation as people would and will continue to criticize FX's decision to cancel.
I do not pay attention to ad's. I pay attention to what good critics and those with good word of mouth have to say.
I'm exhausted by the drab fall season.
I've lost a great deal of faith in television.
I wanted to see the show because I like Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James. There's not much else to it. I think they both have a lot of potential and are inherently interesting people to watch develop a character.
Why did the show fail? I tried to spread the word but a lot of my colleagues don't watch FX to begin with and the rest didn't understand why I'd watch a show all about dogs.
So poor marketing campaign, poor title and we lose what was really the only show I looked forward to watching every week. (Though I admit Boardwalk Empire become highly entertaining the last few episodes.)
To be honest, there just is nothing on TV for me to watch and/or get excited about. Like I said, I'm watching old seasons of Nip/Tuck and loving that much more than any crap on TV now. If we lose Fringe too, I don't know what I'm going to do.