Over the past few years, network TV has gotten into some bad habits, primarily because of budget.
If you’ve followed me for a while, you know how upset I am that Blue Bloods has been canceled. The popular show’s high budget was the primary reason it was axed, and that’s only one symptom of a growing problem.
Network TV has been struggling monetarily for a while, and it’s gotten worse since the writers’ and actors’ strikes in 2023. But are budget woes killing these shows’ quality?
Cancellation Is The Worst Aspect of This Issue, But It’s Been With Us Forever
When popular shows are canceled despite millions of people watching them, that’s a problem.
Blue Bloods is probably the best-known example of this. The series was canceled ahead of its 14th season despite being a top-rated show that often won the hard-to-get-viewers Friday night timeslot.
Millions of fans signed petitions, and millions more are threatening to never watch CBS again because of the show’s cancellation, but that didn’t move the needle — CBS simply couldn’t afford to produce any more Blue Bloods, for a variety of reasons.
Its large cast and on-location filming in New York City contributed to budget woes, and so CBS agreed to a shortened final season… and then the strikes happened, making it even harder for CBS to afford the series.
Although this heartbreaking decision seems to suggest that CBS is in real trouble, as it can’t afford its most popular show, it’s important to keep in mind that money-based cancelations have long been part of the TV industry.
That was the major reason the original Star Trek was canceled in 1969 — though, arguably, it didn’t have nearly the viewership that Blue Bloods does — and shows like Charmed, which have special effects budgets as well as having to pay actors, often ended up on the chopping block for monetary reasons.
More recently, NCIS: Hawaii‘s surprise cancelation was related to the budget needed to continue production, and this past season CBS also canceled the comedy Bob <3 Abishola, even though it was in the top 5, ratings-wise.
Even worse, NBC canceled the new version of Magnum: PI a season after rescuing it from CBS’ cancelation because the network couldn’t seem to find a way to make it work with their budget, so the show’s fans had their hearts broken twice because of money.
Obviously, if networks can’t find the money for shows, they have to cancel them or otherwise reduce costs. There won’t be any more networks if they run out of money.
Still, the idea of canceling popular shows hurts. It sends the message to fans that it doesn’t matter how many millions of people tune in eagerly for each new episode; the network will cancel anyway.
The inadvertent message that the fanbase doesn’t matter and that networks make seemingly arbitrary decisions about what to renew or cancel isn’t a good business model either, and it’s hard to see how the networks can go on if they continue down the road of canceling shows with large fanbases because of money issues.
A Fate Worse Than Cancelation: Smaller-Budget Versions of Popular Shows
Networks have to save money somehow, so if they’re not going to cancel popular shows, they might have to make compromises that lower quality.
As a dedicated fan of police procedurals, I’m well aware of how badly this has hurt Dick Wolf shows. All of his shows have recently utilized the “rotating cast” idea to save money
This compromise allows shows to have a big cast on paper but save money by only using half the actors in any given show.
The problem is that doing so often leads to unbelievable situations. Sometimes, it works out well to give an actor or character a break — Jubal’s suspension on FBI is a reasonable explanation for his absence, for example, and a meaty storyline in its own right.
But often, shows must make excuses for why the characters aren’t there.
When done poorly, cast rotations can become a joke.
Peacock’s Days of Our Lives has this bad habit of using the same excuse every time an out-of-town character has to remain off-screen: their flight was canceled due to mechanical issues.
That gets ridiculous when it’s the same character 15 times in a row, and network TV has a similar issue with cast rotation.
There are only so many times that characters can be away at conferences or off-screen family emergencies without it becoming unbelievable.
The other option, of course, is to trim the cast, getting rid of characters who are too expensive.
This isn’t a totally new problem, either. Actors have been let go because of salary disputes for as long as I can remember, often to the show’s detriment.
As with cast rotations, it can work well if character exits are explained properly and don’t seem gratuitous or random (and don’t involve killing people off for no good reason.)
Long-running doctor shows like Grey’s Anatomy have the perfect excuse because it’s realistic for medical professionals to decide to change jobs after working in a hospital setting for many years.
Thus, that show was able to cut cast to save money and put other doctors on recurring status without raising too many eyebrows.
However, in many cases, these decisions are made at the last minute, explanations. are given after they’re already gone, or the character leaves for a random reason that doesn’t fit them.
The way Kelli Giddish’s Amanda Rollins has been bounced around on Law & Order: SVU has not done her or the show any favors.
She became a teacher without ever having had any interest in teaching before, then became a consultant who profiled perps (not something she was particularly gifted at when she was a cop), and finally took a job in the Intelligence Unit.
All those changes made me dizzy, and they all came about because there wasn’t the budget to keep Giddish in the full-time cast. Fan backlash to her being written out required that she be made a recurring character somehow.
Those types of exits don’t do network shows any favors, even if they do save money. Like the seemingly arbitrary cancelations, they break viewer trust, and pissed off audiences don’t watch TV.
Conclusion: Can Network TV Survive In The Brave New World of Streaming?
Network TV isn’t likely to disappear any time soon, but it needs to find better solutions to its budgetary woes.
Canceling popular shows is always going to be part of the equation, sadly.
Whenever a show is canceled for any reason, there is pushback from disappointed fans, and it’s even more pronounced if it’s a top-rated show.
Networks need to find ways to avoid this whenever possible. Additionally, if they do things like rotate cast members or trim the cast, they need to write people out in a way that makes more sense.
Networks can still offer quality shows within budgetary constraints. The key to making changes is respect for viewers.
It’s disrespectful to write characters out in ways that don’t fit (or to reduce their exit to after-the-fact explanations) or to have them disappear for weeks at a time without reasonable explanations.
Ideas for spinoffs for super popular shows like Blue Bloods should be explored before the show goes off the air, not offered as a consolation prize that may or may not ever happen when you already have millions of angry fans.
By making these kinds of changes, networks can avoid damaging their audiences’ trust, which will kill network TV faster than any budget problem.
Over to you, TV Fanatics.
What are your thoughts on the state of network TV?
Have cancelations and cast changes made you want to give up? Do you still watch network shows even though it breaks your heart every time your favorite is canceled?
Hit the comments with your thoughts.
Read the original article here