Outrage Over FOX Cancelling "Arrested Development

  • Thread starter Thread starter G01
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cancellation of the television show "Arrested Development" by FOX, with participants expressing their disappointment and frustration. The conversation touches on the perceived quality of various television shows, the ratings dynamics, and the decision-making processes of media executives. Participants share personal experiences and opinions regarding the show's cancellation and the state of television programming.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disbelief and anger over FOX's decision to cancel "Arrested Development," citing its Emmy win and quality as reasons for its continuation.
  • Several comments highlight the perceived absurdity of keeping lower-quality shows like "The War at Home" while canceling critically acclaimed series.
  • There are mentions of past cancellations by FOX, including "Futurama" and "Firefly," with participants questioning the network's judgment.
  • Some participants speculate about the possibility of "Arrested Development" being picked up by Showtime, though there are concerns about the cost of cable subscriptions.
  • Discussions also touch on the general dissatisfaction with current television programming and the challenges of finding quality content.
  • One participant shares a theory comparing media executives to sociopaths, suggesting they lack the ability to discern quality in programming.
  • There are humorous interjections and expressions of frustration regarding the state of television and the decisions made by networks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on their disappointment with the cancellation of "Arrested Development" and the perceived poor choices made by FOX. However, there are varying opinions on the quality of other shows and the overall state of television, indicating a lack of consensus on specific programming preferences.

Contextual Notes

Some comments reflect personal viewing habits and preferences, as well as regional differences in cable access and television consumption. There is also a mention of the historical context of show cancellations, which may influence current opinions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to fans of "Arrested Development," viewers concerned about television programming quality, and those interested in the dynamics of network decision-making in the entertainment industry.

  • #31
V... C... R?

Does it have vacuum tubes?

:-p :-p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I still can't believe FOX is cancelling this show. It won an emmy!
Correction: it won six Emmys (in two seasons). Anyway, AD is one of the greatest shows in the history of television, and is definitely up there with Seinfeld as the greatest comedy. And yes, though its days on Fox are numbered, rumor has it that both Showtime and ABC are vying for the show.

For all of you who don't watch it, let me explain why AD is so great. At a very shallow level, the show is extremely funny. The comedic timing is great, the ensemble cast is perfect, and the jokes are hilarious. However, the show also has an incredible amount of depth to it, forcing several viewings of an episode to get it all. Allusions and foreshadowing happen all over the place, in the volume usually associated with a Shakespearean play. The main way is through the extensive use of callbacks. Jokes, aspects of the Bluths' lives, and many little details are often recycled in some way, but almost always with a twist to them. Some of these go back just a few episodes, some call back all the way to the first couple episodes. They range from the subtle (such as the fact that family's maid often wears unseasonal sweaters, or that one character reuses the same banner for multiple occasions, altering it only as much is necessary), to the not-so-subtle (such as the fact that one character thinks that Portugal is in South America, or the fact that another character never gets the context of the word "blue" correct, confusing the depressed meaning with the color), to the overt (such as the fact that all of the Bluths seem to have their own impression of what a chicken sounds like, and none of them sounds remotely like a chicken, or the fact that one character unknowingly makes homosexual double entendres on a regular basis).

Unfortunately, these callbacks force the viewer to see the show from the beginning to fully appreciate everything, making it harder for people who might want to start watching it at a later date. I suspect that this is part of the reason for its low ratings (combined with Fox's marketing strategy for the show: show a promo for it ten minutes before it airs).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Manchot said:
For all of you who don't watch it, let me explain why AD is so great. At a very shallow level, the show is extremely funny. The comedic timing is great, the ensemble cast is perfect, and the jokes are hilarious. However, the show also has an incredible amount of depth to it, forcing several viewings of an episode to get it all. Allusions and foreshadowing happen all over the place, in the volume usually associated with a Shakespearean play. The main way is through the extensive use of callbacks. Jokes, aspects of the Bluths' lives, and many little details are often recycled in some way, but almost always with a twist to them. Some of these go back just a few episodes, some call back all the way to the first couple episodes. They range from the subtle (such as the fact that family's maid often wears unseasonal sweaters, or that one character reuses the same banner for multiple occasions, altering it only as much is necessary), to the not-so-subtle (such as the fact that one character thinks that Portugal is in Mexico, or the fact that another character never gets the context of the word "blue" correct, confusing the depressed meaning with the color), to the overt (such as the fact that all of the Bluths seem to have their own impression of what a chicken sounds like, and none of them sounds remotely like a chicken, or the fact that one character unknowingly makes homosexual double entendres on a regular basis).

Unfortunately, these callbacks force the viewer to see the show from the beginning to fully appreciate everything, making it harder for people who might want to start watching it at a later date. I suspect that this is part of the reason for its low ratings (combined with Fox's marketing strategy for the show: show a promo for it ten minutes before it airs).

Very Well Put.