# Arrested Development to Showtime?



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I found this message from one of AD's producers on another board, with no citation of its original source:



> Showtime may book 'Arrested'
> 
> Mitch Hurwitz
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

This would be the best Christmas present ever! I hope this is what Santa brings us for Christmas!! 

Showtime would get themselves many new subscribers to help pay for that production cost...


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

I would re subscibe to Showtime for this if I was not a sub already.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Chapper1 said:


> This would be the best Christmas present ever! I hope this is what Santa brings us for Christmas!!
> 
> Showtime would get themselves many new subscribers to help pay for that production cost...


I'm a big fan of the show, it's my favorite, and I want to be an optimist, but no, no they wouldn't (get many new subscribers.)


----------



## KalaPela (Dec 16, 2002)

I would subscribe to Showtime to see AD.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

That would be awesome! Lets go showtime!


----------



## bigcb37 (Jun 14, 2002)

I'd be a new subscriber if this went down. No doubt.


----------



## michad (Sep 9, 2002)

I will subscribe to Showtime to watch AD.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

I would poop myself if this happened.

and totally pickup showtime 

wonder if the lack of censor beeps would detract from the comedy. Like when Buster goes off about his mother in season one and Michael, Job, and Lindsey are shocked by how explicit he is.  I guess they could just include the beeps


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

same here
I cancelled showtime when they cancelled "Dead Like Me" I'll be back if they bring AD there.


----------



## Rangers4me (May 18, 2001)

There is an article on Variety that mentioned ABC is also interested.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117934587?categoryid=14&cs=1


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I won't subscribe to Showtime if they pick up AD, but I'll be thrilled and will anxiously await the release of the Showtime eps on DVD.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

mrpantstm said:


> I would poop myself if this happened.
> 
> and totally pickup showtime
> 
> wonder if the lack of censor beeps would detract from the comedy. Like when Buster goes off about his mother in season one and Michael, Job, and Lindsey are shocked by how explicit he is.  I guess they could just include the beeps


I've wondered this as well. I don't think it's as funny to hear the words, as it is to hear the beep.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

doom1701 said:


> I've wondered this as well. I don't think it's as funny to hear the words, as it is to hear the beep.


I doubt they would take out the bleeps. They aren't there to mask dirty language; they are there as a joke in their own right.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

Long live the Beep!


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

No question about it. I'd subscribe to Showtime for this. 

However, I'd like to see the show remain intact. Meaning, the beeps and commercial breaks.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Pair this with Weeds for a great comedy block on SHO!

I hope, hope, hope this is true. But I also hope they keep the show intact (with bleeps).


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

Stories like this... and interest from other networks should clue Fox in that it might need to find a way to keep it.

Fact is, the show IS expensive, and it will never draw great ratings... but networks spend alot of money each year on bad shows which lose money... why not just consider this a "loss leader"? It's a show that brings the network universal acclaim from critics... and engenders tons of good will.


Regardless, though, I haven't subscribed to Showtime in years, but I'll be right back in there if they grabbed AD.


----------



## cancermatt (May 21, 2002)

Four things I found noteworthy in the Variety piece:



Variety said:


> ABC, meanwhile, is also looking to make its mark in comedy, having already established itself as the home of TV's most buzzworthy dramas ("Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Grey's Anatomy"). Net has high hopes for upcoming laffers, such as "Emily's Reason's Why Not," "Crumbs" and "Sons and Daughters," as well as a sophomore contender, "Jake in Progress."


ABC as a network is DESPERATE (pun intended) for a hit comedy, and at least one with a built-in audience, and may be really interested.



Variety said:


> On the other hand, "Arrested" is a winner in the DVD market, and more episodes mean more DVD sales. Skein could also take off if given mass exposure on a cablercabler such as Showtime -- particularly now that the feeveefeevee cabler is part of Leslie Moonves' CBS Corp. family.
> 
> Moonves certainly knows something about making lemons out of lemonade. One of his first acts upon taking over CBS was picking up a show from NBC called "JAG." Skein ran for nearly a decade on the Eye and spawned the successful spinoff "NCIS."


All of a sudden, either Showtime or CBS (which isn't mentioned, but is a possibility) could be interested since Les Moonves oversees both CBS and Showtime and has proven track record of reviving JAG among other fading shows from another network.



Variety said:


> Studio has already deficited millions in order to produce the show, which costs about $1. 6 million per half-hour to produce. It's believed 20th deficits about $400,000 per episode.
> 
> Even if ABC or Showtime stepped up with the same license fee Fox now forks over for the show, 20th execs will have to decide whether it's worth it to sink more money into a show that isn't a proven ratings winner. That's one reason the studio might push for at least a 22-episode (or greater) commitment from a net.
> 
> Studio needs 36 episodes to get "Arrested" to the magic number of 88 episodes required for syndication. But even if it gets to syndication, there's no guarantee of a rich payday in the off-netoff-net market.


Episodes are expensive, which is the main reason FOX downgraded its season order without ratings. Should the show switch networks, it's a win-win situation, most likely requiring 22 or more episodes per season (good for the fans) and helps to get to syndication (good for the networks) and added replay value and even helps along with DVD sales (good for everyone).



Variety said:


> Since Fox has yet to officially cop to canceling "Arrested," 20th can't formally make any deals with another net. There are other barriers to setting the show up elsewhere, however.


Since the show is "unofficially" cancelled, no word can be made as of yet on any moving of networks. EVERYTHING is conjecture and idle rumors until that time.


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

If Fox would consider this a loss leader, they more than make up for it from shows like American Idol, 24, House. I don't really care who pickes it up, as long as someone does. And I will follow it anywhere. 

So far, there are seven people here who would pick up new subscriptions to Showtime. It may sound strange, but the AD watchers are a very loyal bunch...


----------



## jpm37 (Feb 3, 2004)

Make it eight. I'd definitely subcribe to Showtime if AD went there.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

From the article.....

why must they use the word 'skein' so often, and what the heck does it mean?!


----------



## kiljoy (Mar 24, 2001)

I'd subscribe to Showtime to get AD. Wouldn't have a second thought about it.

Tony


----------



## wmacson (Mar 18, 2002)

kiljoy said:


> I'd subscribe to Showtime to get AD. Wouldn't have a second thought about it.
> 
> Tony


As would I! No doubt about it.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I'd probably subscribe. I'm curious why AD is so expensive, 1.5 million for a 1/2 hour show seems pricey.

I know it's not a typical 3 camera studio show, but that seems expensive to me.

-smak-


----------



## cancermatt (May 21, 2002)

skein refers to the show, entertainment industry speak 

Since I just changed from cinemax to showtime, I'd be watching as well!


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

Agh! I've always firmly said I will NEVER pay for Showtime, HBO, or other pay networks. But AD would be the straw that breaks the bamel's back. Yeah, I'd subscribe for AD... Or maybe I'd wait for the DVD's. No, I couldn't wait that long and miss all the discussion on the boards! Agh! Dilemmas, dilemmas...

Count me as 1/2 of an extra subscription - I can't make up my mind!


I am absolutely delighted there's interest from other networks! Can't say I'm surprised, to tell the truth...

And yes, keep the bleeps.


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

smak said:


> I'd probably subscribe. I'm curious why AD is so expensive, 1.5 million for a 1/2 hour show seems pricey.
> 
> I know it's not a typical 3 camera studio show, but that seems expensive to me.
> 
> -smak-


Since they keep referencing the size of the cast, I am assuming that it is the salaries for each actor that makes the show so expensive...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Chapper1 said:


> Since they keep referencing the size of the cast, I am assuming that it is the salaries for each actor that makes the show so expensive...


And they have a number of fairly high-profile cast-members, who I assume draw salaries somewhat above scale...


----------



## Chapper1 (Jan 2, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And they have a number of fairly high-profile cast-members, who I assume draw salaries somewhat above scale...


I am sure Jeffrey Tambor draws a good chunk of it. But the show wouldn't be the same if some of the characters were missing...


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

I'd subscribe to Showtime 1 day per week.


----------



## jerobi (Sep 28, 2000)

Add me to the subscribe list. I bailed when D.L.M. went off.

A.D. + Weeds? SOLID combo. Plus "arrested" and "development" has all sorts of clever marketing pairings with "weeds."


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

I got rid of Showtime when they didn't finish Odyssey 5. I'd re-subscribe if they picked up AD.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

DougF said:


> No question about it. I'd subscribe to Showtime for this.
> 
> However, I'd like to see the show remain intact. Meaning, the beeps and commercial breaks.


Why on earth would you WANT commercials???? That's why prefer watchig movie channels.

But I agree the bleeps are part of the comedy and should stay even if it went to Showtime. I honestly think the show would pick up a new audience on Showtime. Like HBO's original series, Showtime's show have a loyal audience (though their original stuff isn't near as good as HBO). Adding AD to their line-up would definitely strengthen it. Though I can't wait for Huff to come back.

Cheryl


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Bleeps - yes
Commercials - are you kidding?

Maybe a 3 second break to know where it breaks when airing shows that were intented for Fox, but not if they do new ones scpefically for showtime


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

He didn't say he wanted comemrcials. He wants the show to keep the same pacing, which includes those set-up lines into the "fade to white". The show would undeniably have a different feel without them.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Gotcha, well that makes sense then, just have a few second break, like the dvd's


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Chapper1 said:


> I am sure Jeffrey Tambor draws a good chunk of it. But the show wouldn't be the same if some of the characters were missing...


I could do without Oscar.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Legion said:


> I could do without Oscar.


Yes, eliminating Oscar would get rid of one of the stars.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

I would so add a subscription to Showtime if they picked up AD.

Heck, I'd french kiss Mickey if Disney/ABC picked up AD.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

As long as Michael, Buster, and Gob stay i'll be happy


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

They can't get rid of Warden Gentles. Or so I've heard.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

NoThru22 said:


> Yes, eliminating Oscar would get rid of one of the stars.


You could get rid of the actor that plays Oscar and get Jeffrey Tambor to play him - that'd save some money!


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

You could get rid of Surely also, and save even more money.

-smak-


----------



## Warren (Oct 18, 2001)

I saw this yesterday on Attack of the Show during "The Feed" I stoped what I was doing really fast. and I wacthed it like three times with Tivo. i hope to God this is true. I wish there was a way to send Showtime /ABC a note to let them know.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

warrenevans said:


> I wish there was a way to send Showtime /ABC a note to let them know.


There's these things called envelopes. So you write a note on this stuff called paper using a thing called a pen or a thing called a pencil -- or even printing it from your computer or dragging out the old thing called a typewriter you might have in your basement. Fold it up and place it in that envelope. Then using the thing called a pen or the thing called a pencil or your computer printer or a typewriter, write/print/type the address for Showtime or ABC on it. Then there's these things called postage stamps that you can buy at this palce called the post office or at grocery stores or many ATM's or even print yourself online and you put 37 cents worth of them on the upper right corner of that envelope. Take that envelope and place it in this thing called a mailbox that you have near your home, or place it in any of those things called mailboxes you might find around town or at that place called the post office.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

dswallow said:


> There's these things called envelopes...


Oh, tht's *way* too complicated. I guess I'll just ***** on the Internet as usual.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I too would subscribe to Showtime or HBO or anyone that picks it up.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Now this made me sad and I know it is only a pilot:

From The Futon Critic:



> ANDY BARKER, P.I. (NBC) - Tony Hale (Byron "Buster" Bluth on "Arrested Development") has joined the cast of the Andy Richter-led comedy pilot, about an accountant-turned-private eye. He'll play Simon in the NBC Universal Television-based half-hour, which comes from executive producers Jonathan Groff, David Kissinger, A.J. Morewitz, Conan O'Brien and Jeff Ross. Hale's involvement is in second position to any potential fourth season of the FOX series. Amy Farrington also stars in the project, which Jason Ensler is directing.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It says right in the story that "Hale's involvement is in second position to any potential fourth season" of Arrested Development. That means that if AD is renewed or sold to another network, Buster would still be part of the cast. 

You can't blame Tony for wanting to move on. This is the prime season for actors to find jobs with all the pilots being greenlit. FOX has really tied these guys up since they won't cancel or renew the show and that's preventing Showtime from being able to finalize any deal. Perhaps this is part of FOX's strategy. Hold out so long that all the actors are committed to other shows and then Showtime won't bother making the deal and the show will just die. I'm sure FOX doesn't want it to go and succeed on Showtime because that would make them look stupid.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Yeah I saw that but it makes me feel better to think all the AD actors are sitting at home waiting to be bought by another network. 

Now on the other hand it makes me happy to see two actors from 2 of the best sitcoms in the last 5 years work together on a project.


----------



## Dignan (Jan 27, 2002)

Take this with huge boulder sized grain of salt, because I know how it sounds but; 

I have a friend who works with someone that is related to someone who works on the show (I can't mention who it is but THEY would know  ), they recently grilled them on AD at a family function and they said it was a done deal with Showtime. 

/puts on flame suit/


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Dignan said:


> Take this with huge bolder sized grain of salt, because I know how it sounds but;
> 
> I have a friend who works with someone that is related to someone who works on the show (I can't mention who it is but THEY would know  ), they recently grilled them on AD at a family function and they said it was a done deal with Showtime.
> 
> /puts on flame suit/


The latest rumor that's going around says a 4th season of 26 episodes will be on Showtime but can't/won't be announced until FOX officially releases the show.


----------



## Mike10 (Mar 1, 2006)

dswallow said:


> The latest rumor that's going around says a 4th season of 26 episodes will be on Showtime but can't/won't be announced until FOX officially releases the show.


Actually the rumor is 2 seasons
which would be 13 episodes each


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

They could save money by having the role of Egg played by a real egg.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Mike10 said:


> Actually the rumor is 2 seasons
> which would be 13 episodes each


That's what was originally talked about, but more recently it's being represented as a 4th season of 26 episodes. Either way, 26 episodes probably is good news to fans.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Why is Fox dragging their feet....they obviously won't be renewing the show....cut it loose already!!!


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Paperboy2003 said:


> Why is Fox dragging their feet....they obviously won't be renewing the show....cut it loose already!!!


They will once pilot season is over. They have to have fall back in case every pilot that they produce is a steaming pile of crap. For FOX that equals 98% of the shows they put out.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

mwhip said:


> They will once pilot season is over. They have to have fall back in case every pilot that they produce is a steaming pile of crap. For FOX that equals 98% of the shows they put out.


LOL at the vast amount of truth in that 98% figure


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Henry Winkler was on alocal radio show here Monday. He said the show definatey isnt dead and it is up to the shows creator. He is holding the cards at the moment. He didnt want to elaborate, but he implied the show has a future if it wants.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

mwhip said:


> They will once pilot season is over. They have to have fall back in case every pilot that they produce is a steaming pile of crap. For FOX that equals 98% of the shows they put out.


Considering the new shows they have launched so far in March, they very well could realize the possibility.


----------



## f0gax (Aug 8, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> I'm sure FOX doesn't want it to go and succeed on Showtime because that would make them look stupid.


That particular ship sailed LOOOONG ago.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I still say it would be amusing (in an evil way) if, after all the deals are made and everybody's excited about the move to Showtime, Fox then renewed the show.

I'm not saying I think it COULD happen, or that I hope it DOES happen. Just that I would be forced to smile at their evil in the midst of my weeping.


----------



## Big_Daddy (Nov 20, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I still say it would be amusing (in an evil way) if, after all the deals are made and everybody's excited about the move to Showtime, Fox then renewed the show.


Yes because the announcement would be followed a week later by an order cutting the season from 22 eps to 13.


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

Big_Daddy said:


> Yes because the announcement would be followed a week later by an order cutting the season from 22 eps to 13.


and a move to a new time slot opposite Lost.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

mrpantstm said:


> and a move to a new time slot opposite Lost.


Lost shows more repeats then new episodes, so this could be a good thing


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Langree said:


> Lost shows more repeats then new episodes, so this could be a good thing


Yes, but with careful counter-programming, Fox could make sure that they only go head-to-head with new episodes.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes, but with careful counter-programming, Fox could make sure that they only go head-to-head with new episodes.


Well JJ Abrams is a cool guy he said this year that he could spare a couple million viewers and they should watch Veronica Mars. He also said on repeat weeks all his viewers should watch VM.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Big_Daddy said:


> Yes because the announcement would be followed a week later by an order cutting the season from 22 eps to 13.


Exactly. Fox should do the decent thing and let Showtime have it.

It's like trading your 6th starting pitcher to another team who can use him.

-smak-


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

I wonder what kind of leeway Fox has to bring the show back. Do they have to bring it back as-is, or could they bring back :

"Dancing with Arrested Development"

or they could just add a new Star to the show such as Jillian Barberie.


----------



## ElVee (Feb 20, 2002)

devdogaz said:


> I'm sure FOX doesn't want it to go and succeed on Showtime because that would make them look stupid.


Success is relative. If AD went to Showtime and got the same ratings it did on FOX, by pay-cable standards, it'd be a hit.

I'm curious how AD's FOX ratings would compare to the ratings for shows on HBO and Showtime. Specifically Huff, Weeds, Barbershop and Curb Your Enthusiasm.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

I'm not sure about CYE but AD's ratings on FOX blows away Huff, Weeds and Barbershop.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ElVee said:


> Success is relative. If AD went to Showtime and got the same ratings it did on FOX, by pay-cable standards, it'd be a hit.
> 
> I'm curious how AD's FOX ratings would compare to the ratings for shows on HBO and Showtime. Specifically Huff, Weeds, Barbershop and Curb Your Enthusiasm.


Yes, it's already been posted by someone in one of these threads that the "hits" on Showtime like Weeds and Huff draw fewer than one million viewers. Even at its worst, AD was drawing over three million viewers.


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

marksman said:


> I wonder what kind of leeway Fox has to bring the show back. Do they have to bring it back as-is, or could they bring back :
> 
> "Dancing with Arrested Development"
> 
> or they could just add a new Star to the show such as Jillian Barberie.


Or Lindsey and Tobias could have twins! Even better, triplets!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

devdogaz said:


> Yes, it's already been posted by someone in one of these threads that the "hits" on Showtime like Weeds and Huff draw fewer than one million viewers. Even at its worst, AD was drawing over three million viewers.


Yeah, but pay-cable economics are very different than commercial television. You don't need to sell advertising so you don't need to worry as much about how many people watch the show. What you care about is how many people will _pay_ to watch it: how many new subscribers AD gets you (and, on the back end, how many will keep subscribing who would otherwise have left).

In that sense it's not clear to me how well this show will do for Showtime... but in my opinion they should definitely take the chance


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Curb Your Enthusiasm gets an average of one million viewers per episode. Arrested Development recently averaged between four million on the high side and three million on the low side.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Cable ratings are diluted a bit since most shows are aired multiple times during a week. With Showtime and HBO, most folks even get the east and west coast feeds, so even if i watch a new Sopranos on a Sunday night, it could be the east or west coast feed.

-smak-


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Honestly I think the west coast / east coast thing has very little to do with things.

Cable rats are diluted cause... well, it's paid cable. There's MANY MANY more people who regularly watch free OTA stations than paid cable premium stations.

"Most folks" getting both east and west coast feeds would only be satellite customers which excludes the vast majority of paid subscribers... ie: cable subscribers.

While they may (ie: definitely) be of a higher quality and calibur, you can't justify cable shows' lower ratings by arguing east/west coast feed issues or multi-castings.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

In the small amounts of numbers we see for cable ratings, having 1/2 dozen airings of a particular show each week can certainly effect the numbers.

If they give you a number for Sopranos Sunday night, how many people saw that it was re-airing Wednesday night and decided to watch that one instead, for whatever reason.

I'm not saying pay cable ratings would be anything close to network ratings, i'm saying when they give you numbers for those shows, what are they? Total viewers per week, or total for the first airing? 

Those can be pretty different numbers.

-smak-


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

cwoody222 said:


> "Most folks" getting both east and west coast feeds would only be satellite customers which excludes the vast majority of paid subscribers... ie: cable subscribers.


All of the decent cable systems that I have seen in recent years carry both East and West feeds of all the premium channels. Digital channels is the key.


----------



## ewolfr (Feb 12, 2001)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/28/GOODMAN.TMP

Looks like the final nail is in the coffin for AD...

I loved this show, and am disappointed that Showtime won't be picking it up after all.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

ewolfr said:


> I loved this show, and am disappointed that Showtime won't be picking it up after all.


Your statemnent characterizes it like it's Showtime's decision... The creator killed it, not Showtime...

A source close to the negotiations said that creator Mitch Hurwitz had decided after a lengthy period of debating an offer from Showtime that "Arrested Development reached its end, creatively, as a series."


----------



## hawkamer (Jun 5, 2002)

Burn in hell, Mitch Hurwitz!


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Frankly I admire Hurwitz and his decision.
Go out on a high rather than continue. That took guts.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Gunnyman said:


> Frankly I admire Hurwitz and his decision.
> Go out on a high rather than continue. That took guts.


Yeah, if he wasn't committed to going on, it's a good thing he didn't. Walking away from a two-year job in Hollywood can't be easy.


----------



## Rangers4me (May 18, 2001)

I am very disappointed, but you can't blame the guy. As much as you want critical recognition, you really want mass appeal. It certainly has to take a lot out of you when you think you got a gem, and 80% of people just don't get it.

I wish they kept it going though! COME ON!


----------



## scoot95 (Mar 14, 2006)

Come On!


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Legion said:


> Henry Winkler was on alocal radio show here Monday. He said the show definatey isnt dead and it is up to the shows creator. He is holding the cards at the moment. He didnt want to elaborate, but he implied the show has a future if it wants.


Looks like the fonz was right.


----------



## scoot95 (Mar 14, 2006)

It is a sad...sad day:


----------



## scoot95 (Mar 14, 2006)




----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I guess we'll have to say goodbye to these!


----------



## mrpantstm (Jan 25, 2005)

while I'm depressed it's over, I'd certainly say the season finale did end on a good note and there weren't many cliffhangers to wrap up.


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

Gunnyman said:


> Frankly I admire Hurwitz and his decision.
> Go out on a high rather than continue. That took guts.


If I meet you in person I will kick you in the shins!


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

ooooooooooooooooooo kkkkkkkkkkkkk
It's a tv show.
And you're threatening physical violence on me for an opinion? 
Unless you forgot the smiley after that post I suggest you seek professional help.


----------



## cwoody222 (Nov 13, 1999)

Eh, I'm saddened. But satisfied too.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I am not going to blame FOX for this one...I mean they gave the show 55 episodes to find an audience and stuck by it for 3 years. I would actually like to say thank you to them for this one. Any other show would have been gone at 13 episodes.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Gunnyman said:


> ooooooooooooooooooo kkkkkkkkkkkkk
> It's a tv show.
> And you're threatening physical violence on me for an opinion?
> Unless you forgot the smiley after that post I suggest you seek professional help.


Anyone who would threaten someone by "kicking them in the shins" doesnt need to put a smiley anywhere. Its kind of obvious. Professional help might of told you that.

Unless of course you forgot your smiley.

I know I remembered mine


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

Slightly disappointed, but like I said in the thread for the final episode, I could live with it if that was the end. I thoroughly enjoyed the ride and can't understand the apathy of the average TV viewer toward the show. This does mean that when my 6 months of free Showtime is over, that will be it. Not enough on there to hold my interest, though I do have a SP for Penn & Tellers' BS.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

It is too bad but the show arc from show 1 to the last episode was virtually perfect, so I have no problems with how it ended.

I would have loved to seen more episodes, but it is time to move on. I imagine creatively all this uncertainity had to be a major beatdown and perhaps he moved himself on already to work on something else. Once that is done, I imagine it would be difficult to go back.


----------



## Big_Daddy (Nov 20, 2002)

Can't really blame Hurwitz for this decision. The (my) perception is that he put his heart into the show, only for it to have a difficult time finding an audience then be threatened with cancellation over and over again. And reduced season orders.

A lot of stress and heartbreak. And then you wrap it up, only for the carrot to dangle again?

He made 4 seasons of the funniest television I've seen in years. Thanks for that.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

scoot95 said:


>


well played... :up:

Obviously I'm sad to see the show go, but I think the fact that they ended the storyline in the last episode really helps a lot. I'm not left with a feeling of abandonment that I've gotten from other shows that were just hitting their stride.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Gunnyman said:


> Frankly I admire Hurwitz and his decision.
> Go out on a high rather than continue. That took guts.


Jerry Seinfeld was offered something like $5 million per episode for a 10th season of "Seinfeld" and turned it down for the same reason. I thought he was crazy to turn down that kind of money, but I'm also glad "Seinfeld" didn't turn into a joke before it went off the air.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Legion said:


> Anyone who would threaten someone by "kicking them in the shins" doesnt need to put a smiley anywhere. Its kind of obvious. Professional help might of told you that.
> 
> Unless of course you forgot your smiley.
> 
> I know I remembered mine


Hey I have sensitive shins


----------



## NoThru22 (May 6, 2005)

I had posted asking if a shin kick is a serious injury but I noticed it had already been said.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

Sorry I miss-took your Joke. I was only half way into coffee number 1


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

DougF said:


> Jerry Seinfeld was offered something like $5 million per episode for a 10th season of "Seinfeld" and turned it down for the same reason. I thought he was crazy to turn down that kind of money, but I'm also glad "Seinfeld" didn't turn into a joke before it went off the air.


Did we watch the same Finale?


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

Langree said:


> Did we watch the same Finale?


I didn't hate the finale. It think it really sucks in the way-edited syndicated version, though. I honestly only hate two episodes out of the entire run ("The Muffin Tops" and "The Blood").

In general, though, I think the series ended before it got bad.


----------



## Mike10 (Mar 1, 2006)

Wow this sucks I thought that the showtime deal would happen for sure

This wont happen and I dont want it to happen but Fox could still bring the show back or 20th century fox television and Imagine could still license the show to another network even if Mitch Hurwitz isnt involved


----------

