Farewell to Kings?
Kevin M.
Hulu, probably the best program NBC has aired in the last five years.
Satisfying drama, amazing acting, brilliant writing, and a modern
morality play all rolled into one. Stories of divinity, bravery,
nobility, and sacrifice. As a midseason series that didn't feature
idiots eating bugs or juggling, it never had a chance. But I found the
series to be noteworthy in the way "EZ Streets" was noteworthy --
ahead of its time in tone and temperament. Catch it on Hulu or check
it out on DVD, but don't miss it.
http://www.hulu.com/kings
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
Ron Casalotti
Thanks
Ron Casalotti
David Risner
--
David Risner
Software Engineer
MERLOT, California State University
--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Jason Carpio
PGage
I tried to evangelize the awesomeness of this show when it was on the air.i wonder if this show would of lasted longer on a cable network.
I also really liked Kings, but I have not been able to generate the usual outrage at NBC for canceling it, I guess because it seems like we should just be grateful they even gave it a try in the first place. Given what we know about NBC, the state of broadcast television, and the quality of the show, it seems really unlikely that this show ever saw the light of day.
Kings averaged about 4.6M viewers in the four weeks it aired on Sundays, which was a little more than the Jay Leno Show would average the next year. But Kings no doubt was a lot more expensive to produce than the JLS, and its ratings went down every week. When NBC brought it back on Saturday nights, the ratings averaged 1.7M.
I was interested in how that compares with cable ratings. The King Kong of cable drams is The Closer, which got 7.4M viewers last week. But TNT and USA have near broadcast network expectations for their mainstream dramas. Mad Men on AMC, averaged 1.8M viewers for season 3. Damages, on FX, got 1.7M for its season 2 premier, 1.5M for its season 3 premier, and .975 for its season 3 finale ( I would rank Kings somewhere between Damages and Mad Men in quality). Damages got canceled after season 3, though I guess it got picked up in one of those DirecTV reclamation projects (which would have been great for Kings actually).
It looks then like somewhere between 1.5M and 2M viewers is considered acceptable for the smaller, quality basic cable dramas, which is right were Kings was on Saturday nights on NBC. If NBC on Saturday night is the equivalent of AMÇ on Sunday night, or FX on Tuesday night, then there is an argument to be made that Kings could have been popular enough to get renewed had it been on a smaller cable outlet (but not TNT or USA). But I guess they would have had to pay everybody a lot less.
I think FX would have been perfect for Kings, it had kind of a The Shield vibe anyway. Oddly, I don't think it would have been as good on HBO or Showtime - the limitations on language and nudity worked for Kings, and the FX rules, somewhat loser than broadcast, would have been just about right.
We might actually be getting closer to what cable tv originally promised us, something like niche programming. it would not be so bad to have mainstream shows like CSI and American Idol on broadcast networks, and narrower stream (including higher "quality") shows like Mad Men on smaller basic cable. I am not sure where shows like The Closer and Burn Notice would be in that scheme (they probably both would do well on a network at 9:00 pm). For this to work, the networks should be able to move higher quality shows that dont get good enough ratings to a partnered basic cable outlet to see if the show can find an audience there.
Jon Delfin
on Saturdays, I'd like to say an encouraging word for "Persons
Unknown." It's no "Kings," but should it ever find its way to DVD, and
you're willing to watch a 13-hour-long episode of "The Twilight Zone,"
you will likely find it satisfying -- up to and including the
unresolved, very Serlingesque ending.
jd
Kevin M.
> i wonder if this show would of lasted longer on a cable network.
The show would have lasted longer on a network that hadn't devoted
itself to lowbar programing like "Deal or No Deal" and "Fear Factor."
It was just too jarring for viewers to transition from a show with the
basic premise of "pick a number" to an hour-long drama about powers
and principalities (it is also why the Wheel/Jeopardy evening hour has
worked for decades while Hollywood Squares didn't -- the first
requires at least a few active brain cells while the second is just
mindnumbing tic-tac-toe). I think HBO or Showtime would have wanted
more sex and violence, whereas I liked the implied-but-not-seen sex
and violence of the series -- reminded me of the Lion-roaring MGM
Hollywood days. And basic cable would have moved the series to Canada
where -- with all due respect to my maple leaf lovin' friends -- it
would have looked Canadian.
I agree with PGage that NBC deserves credit for putting on such an
ambitious show, but they also deserve the blame for lowering the
network's level of quality to the point that the series could not find
the audience it deserved.
If nothing else, I'd recommend viewers watch the two-part pilot
episode and the two-part finale -- I guarantee you will want to go
back and see the episodes that ran in-between.
--
Kevin M. (RPCV)
Tom Wolper
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jason Carpio <jca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I tried to evangelize the awesomeness of this show when it was on the air.
>> i wonder if this show would of lasted longer on a cable network.
>
> The show would have lasted longer on a network that hadn't devoted
> itself to lowbar programing like "Deal or No Deal" and "Fear Factor."
> It was just too jarring for viewers to transition from a show with the
> basic premise of "pick a number" to an hour-long drama about powers
> and principalities (it is also why the Wheel/Jeopardy evening hour has
> worked for decades while Hollywood Squares didn't -- the first
> requires at least a few active brain cells while the second is just
> mindnumbing tic-tac-toe). I think HBO or Showtime would have wanted
> more sex and violence, whereas I liked the implied-but-not-seen sex
> and violence of the series -- reminded me of the Lion-roaring MGM
> Hollywood days. And basic cable would have moved the series to Canada
> where -- with all due respect to my maple leaf lovin' friends -- it
> would have looked Canadian.
>
> I agree with PGage that NBC deserves credit for putting on such an
> ambitious show, but they also deserve the blame for lowering the
> network's level of quality to the point that the series could not find
> the audience it deserved.
I watched every episode when the series ran, usually on tape or on
Hulu the week it aired. The series had a lot going for it but I don't
believe the problem was that the audience was just too lowbrow for it.
I liked the production values, the idea of using the biblical story as
source material, and about half of the actors. Putting an ancient
story into a modern situation stretched things a little too much for
me. On the other hand, I liked the ability of the storytellers to
integrate modern technology like cell phones, YouTube, and TMZ-type
celebrity programming into their stories.
The thing I think really hurt the series was the actor who played
David. He just wasn't engaging enough to pull viewers to watch the
show. My take is that the producers were more interested in getting a
pretty boy to lead rather than a dynamic actor like Ian MacShane who
played King Saul. It's possible that the story was written so that
David would be overwhelmed and impassive the first season and the
character would develop during the second season to become a ruler,
but that failed by not having a second season.
The question of whether the series would have thrived as a basic cable
series is an interesting one. The budget would have been cut of
course. If the integrity of the episode plots and the general level of
acting would have been maintained the series might have worked.
PGage
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:I watched every episode when the series ran, usually on tape or on
> I agree with PGage that NBC deserves credit for putting on such an
> ambitious show, but they also deserve the blame for lowering the
> network's level of quality to the point that the series could not find
> the audience it deserved.
Hulu the week it aired. The series had a lot going for it but I don't
believe the problem was that the audience was just too lowbrow for it. (SNIP)
The thing I think really hurt the series was the actor who played
David. He just wasn't engaging enough to pull viewers to watch the
show. My take is that the producers were more interested in getting a
pretty boy to lead rather than a dynamic actor like Ian MacShane who
played King Saul. (SNIP)I
Tom makes some good points here. In Deadwood MacShane really had some equal status actors to play off of; in Kings he often did not get the ball hit back to him at the same velocity. That partly was probably intentional - and what made the show interesting. In popular Christian tradition King Saul gets real bad press, but the OT stories describe him as a a head taller than the average man and a commanding leader, while David (at least during Saul's lifetime) is something of a conniving weakling. As Tom says, it is possible the David character would have gotten fleshed out in later episodes, and there is evidence that this was in progress, but it is not clear the actor was ever going to be able to go toe to toe with MacShane.
I also agree that the problem was not that the show was too good for a popular audience - there have been better shows on network tv that got higher ratings, and Kings had a few problems. But I think the problem was that at best it was going to have a narrow audience. Even without all the coc*suckers, Deadwood probably would have not drawn a wide cross section audience either. Still, it seems like there should be some place in the multi-channel-verse for a thoughtful, creative and challenging program to find a home and make a profit if there are two million or so people who want to watch it regularly.