# Friday Night Lights Comments from NBC President



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

Ben Silverman, President of NBC Entertainment, made the following comments regarding the future of FNL:

I love it. You love it. Unfortunately, no one watches it. Thats the thing with shows. People have to watch them. Were NBC, we have a reputation to uphold. And, man, with this writers strike well, well see what we can do. But start watching 30 Rock.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/friday-night-lights-silverman-has-doubts-about-shows-future/

Enjoy next week's episode, it looks like it will be the last.


----------



## mrowe8 (Dec 29, 2004)

Ridiculous. This is the best show on TV.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

mrowe8 said:


> Ridiculous. This is the best show on TV.


It was kind of a surprise that it was renewed this year. I can't really fault NBC too much; they didn't juggle it into different time slots every week, and they gave it two seasons. It just never caught on.

It is sad, though.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Sorry guys. I stopped watching at some point during Season 2. Season 1 I loved, even gave my dad the DVD set for his birthday. But Season 2 lost me after a few episodes and when I moved I forgot to even set-up a new season pass.

I did appreciate the acting and the camera work even if the storylines got silly.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Zevida said:


> Sorry guys. I stopped watching at some point during Season 2. Season 1 I loved, even gave my dad the DVD set for his birthday. But Season 2 lost me after a few episodes and when I moved I forgot to even set-up a new season pass.
> 
> I did appreciate the acting and the camera work even if the storylines got silly.


the show was a little rough in the early parts of season 2. But it got better and is now as good as ever.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

The full exchange with Ben Silverman really made him come off like a d*ck:

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...-not-optimistic-about-friday-night-lights.php


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

mrowe8 said:


> Ridiculous. This is the best show on TV.


I don't know.......season 1 was incredibly awesome, season 2 has turned me off a bit.

Not the best show on tv, but it was the best drama in season 1.

Pay channels - The Wire
Broadcast channels - The Office (Drama probably House but broadcast dramas are currently weak - Lost arguably better, but different)


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I really did not like the beginning of Season 2 but they finally got over that horrible storyline and it's really a great show. Last week's episode had some of the best dramatic acting I've seen on TV. But you can't blame NBC on this one.....they have given this show a chance. People for some reason or another aren't watching it, and that's really too bad.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Great show, but they need more FOOTBALL

The best part of season 1 was that it was a great mix of football, drama, and other character stuff.

This season it's super drama, crazy character stuff, and OH yeah, the show is about football, so every other week we'll win or lose a game, sure why not!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

That's way bad. FNL is in my top 5 shows easily.


----------



## dmlove51 (Mar 17, 2004)

I am bummed the way I was when American Dreams was cancelled.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> Great show, but they need more FOOTBALL
> 
> The best part of season 1 was that it was a great mix of football, drama, and other character stuff.
> 
> This season it's super drama, crazy character stuff, and OH yeah, the show is about football, so every other week we'll win or lose a game, sure why not!


I'd disagree. This show is NOT about football. It's about the characters who work or go to a high school, which happens to have a good football team. The interactions between the parents, students, coaches, and other townspeople is where it's at. This show has deplicted high school much more realistically than pretty much any other show.

Maybe this confusion with what the show is about is why it's not doing well. You have the side who think the show should be all about football, and they don't watch because they don't like the rest. Then you have the other half who doesn't like football and doesn't watch it because they falsely think the show is all about football.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I like the mix, that is what drew me in, and what gets me AND Maggie BOTH loving the show equally (not many shows out there like that)

I don't want all football, but this season it has basically become a well done high school drama like any other.

I tuned in to watch a high school drama ABOUT football, not with football thrown in every other episode. 

Now it's just about the characters who HAPPEN to play football, most of them could be playing basketball or baseball and it wouldn't change a thing in the show now, which stinks. 

Don't get me wrong, I still love the show, but I think they have gotten away from the perfect balance they had last season.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Season 1 was great.

Season 2 isn't even on the greatness radar; it's living entirely on the season 1 greatness.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

But if it were 1 episode per game of football this year, it would be exactly like last year. It would feel too much like we've done this already.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

If they're not getting the viewers, then be kind and put it out of its misery. But can we have a wrap-up TV movie? Apparently it's going to end on a big cliffhanger. That's no way to go out.


----------



## mrowe8 (Dec 29, 2004)

I agree that the start of the season was a bit silly but it has been resolved and is now back to very believable high school situations with great acting.


----------



## Bob_Newhart (Jul 14, 2004)

serumgard said:


> The full exchange with Ben Silverman really made him come off like a d*ck:
> 
> http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...-not-optimistic-about-friday-night-lights.php


NBC has a 12 year old president?


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Sorry to read this news. I missed the entire first season, but got hooked on the show this year. Guess I'll have to get the DVD's to catch up. Here's hoping they do wrap up the series some how.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

BURN IN HELL NBC!


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

what are you gonna do?

you can't keep airing a show that nobody is watching.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> what are you gonna do?
> 
> you can't keep airing a show that nobody is watching.


It's safe to say they're wrong when they say "nobody"; only that they want more people to watch than are currently watching. If nobody were watching, this thread probably wouldn't even exist.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DancnDude said:


> I'd disagree. This show is NOT about football. It's about the characters who work or go to a high school, which happens to have a good football team. The interactions between the parents, students, coaches, and other townspeople is where it's at. This show has deplicted high school much more realistically than pretty much any other show.
> 
> Maybe this confusion with what the show is about is why it's not doing well. You have the side who think the show should be all about football, and they don't watch because they don't like the rest. Then you have the other half who doesn't like football and doesn't watch it because they falsely think the show is all about football.


Perhaps the problem with the ratings is, during the show's first season, it was mainly about football, so the people not particularly interested in football weren't watching it, but the second season has definitely turned into a "teenage soap opera" with occasional bursts of football, and while a number of people have started watching the show because of the change, somewhere around the same number stopped because of that same change.

If they want to focus on the students' lives and want more people to watch, they should move the show to "Malibu High School". Nobody who was interested in, say, _The O.C._ cares about the lifestyles of people who live somewhere where high school football is the town's main attraction.

-- Don


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

dswallow said:


> It's safe to say they're wrong when they say "nobody"; only that they want more people to watch than are currently watching. If nobody were watching, this thread probably wouldn't even exist.


yeah... But note how little activity is in this thread compared to other shows.

People watch. But not many. Not enough. Or, not enough in a way an advertiser cares about. And that's really all that matters.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I thought it was doing well in the Friday time slot. Did that change?

Also, if the show is not about football then why does it have a title directly relating to football?


----------



## dmlove51 (Mar 17, 2004)

> Or, not enough in a way an advertiser cares about. And that's really all that matters


And anyway, people on a TiVO forum aren't who the advertisers care about since we don't watch the commercials!


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

Wow, that interview does not inspire confidence in Silverman _at all_. This man is running a network?


----------



## David Ortiz (Jul 8, 2002)

Maybe CBS will pick it up, add Catherine Bell and it will run for 8 more seasons!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

That "interview" was pretty clearly (at least to me) satire, not an actual interview.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

dswallow said:


> Season 1 was great.
> 
> Season 2 isn't even on the greatness radar; it's living entirely on the season 1 greatness.


Pure malarky. Season 2 has developed nicely, and, as someone mentioned, last week's episode had some of the best dramatic acting I've seen on television in years.



TAsunder said:


> I thought it was doing well in the Friday time slot. Did that change?...


I thought so too. Anyone have the numbers?


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

It's all because Tyra cut her hair, much like Kerri Russel and Felicity being cancelled.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I thought so too. Anyone have the numbers?


Well, according to this, a brand new FNL placed 3rd behind a repeat of House and a repeat of Moonlight. That does not seem good.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I didnt watch it because I hate football.

Seriously. I dont even know how the darn game works. I just know that when someone says "TOUCHDOWN!" you stand up and cheer.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Jesda said:


> I didnt watch it because I hate football.
> 
> Seriously. I dont even know how the darn game works. I just know that when someone says "TOUCHDOWN!" you stand up and cheer.


That only works about half the time.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Pure malarky. Season 2 has developed nicely, and, as someone mentioned, last week's episode had some of the best dramatic acting I've seen on television in years.


Last week had one great scene. It was the 14th episode of the season. Not a particularly great track record.

That's the problem. In season 1 there probably wasn't a single episode that didn't have several great scenes, and overall a great storyline and character development, and, well, just plain good, smart writing AND acting almost all around.

And you simply cannot, without lying, say the same thing about season 2. At all. Not even as a white lie. Season 2, by comparison, just sucks. The greatness is gone. It has great moments... moments that we come to appreciate greatly because they've become so very, very rare. But they do not add up to anything like season 1 was almost continuously from beginning to end.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Zevida said:


> Sorry guys. I stopped watching at some point during Season 2. Season 1 I loved, even gave my dad the DVD set for his birthday. But Season 2 lost me after a few episodes and when I moved I forgot to even set-up a new season pass.


You have a Tivo, you shouldn't've had to set up a new season pass... it should've been automagically moved to the NBC station in your new area.

(I have never seen this show..)


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

dswallow said:


> And you simply cannot, without lying, say the same thing about season 2. At all. Not even as a white lie. Season 2, by comparison, just sucks. The greatness is gone. It has great moments... moments that we come to appreciate greatly because they've become so very, very rare. But they do not add up to anything like season 1 was almost continuously from beginning to end.


Gosh, you're right. Season 2 isn't as good as season 1, so it sucks. NBC should cancel it. I also thought the Lost season premiere wasn't as good as last season's finale, so Lost sucks and ABC should cancel that.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> I also thought the Lost season premiere wasn't as good as last season's finale, so Lost sucks and ABC should cancel that.


We agree on that, at least.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DancnDude said:


> I'd disagree. This show is NOT about football. It's about the characters who work or go to a high school, which happens to have a good football team. The interactions between the parents, students, coaches, and other townspeople is where it's at. This show has deplicted high school much more realistically than pretty much any other show.
> 
> Maybe this confusion with what the show is about is why it's not doing well. You have the side who think the show should be all about football, and they don't watch because they don't like the rest. Then you have the other half who doesn't like football and doesn't watch it because they falsely think the show is all about football.


The problem with all that is the lineage.

I loved the original book when I read it almost 20 years ago it seems. Really good book and the book was about the town and the people but its central focus was on football.

The movie came along and I found it a disappointment compared to the book.

I have not managed to get into the show. Just could never get into it, but it is a huge departure from the book that spawned the movie that spawned the tv show.

It sucks that the show may be over, but he is right people need to watch these shows. I actually like this guy, because you could always tell he is a big fan of tv, and making decisions like this breaks his heart. I would say though, that it is not like the show did not get a shot. It has been on a year and half now? I think that is a reasonable enough run to see if people will catch on.

Just like when Arrested Development went away. It sucked, but the show got a fair shot and then some.

And he is probably right about 30 Rock. I know this year it passed the Office as the funniest show on Tv, which may very well make it the best show on tv.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

dswallow said:


> It's safe to say they're wrong when they say "nobody"; only that they want more people to watch than are currently watching. If nobody were watching, this thread probably wouldn't even exist.


Its not exactly a revelation that this show has an active thread considering how much conversation really bad shows like "Caveman" generate. I mean, think about it, you are in a forum based on a DVR which is all about watching TV. It stands to reason that the its members watch alot more television than the average American. It also stands to reason that even the lamest shows (not implying FNL is lame, I'm a big fan) are going to get fans here. So, the fact that this thread exists is proof of nothing. FNL was doomed when they moved it to Friday night. And my opinion is that they probably dramatically reduced the amount of football this season because the producers thought that was the reason the show was getting such poor ratings.

Doug, I'm starting to think that maybe you have a short attention span when it comes to new shows. It seems like I have seen lots of posts from you where you like a show for a season, or perhaps two, and you become progressively less enamored as seasons continue. Is it possible that the shows are every bit as good as they were, and that you just become bored very easily? Or am I way off base?


----------



## reh523 (Feb 28, 2006)

Graymalkin said:


> Apparently it's going to end on a big cliffhanger. That's no way to go out.


Don't they all?


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

bengalfreak said:


> Doug, I'm starting to think that maybe you have a short attention span when it comes to new shows. It seems like I have seen lots of posts from you where you like a show for a season, or perhaps two, and you become progressively less enamored as seasons continue. Is it possible that the shows are every bit as good as they were, and that you just become bored very easily? Or am I way off base?


There's a difference between liking a show and criticizing it for not living up to its own standards. They're not mutually exclusive, either.

I think anyone tuning in to Friday Night Lights for the first time this season because of some sort of recommendation from someone from last season would be sorely disappointed.

It's rare that I give up on a show still being aired, if I liked it before. Just glancing through a spreadsheet I keep on the subject, shows I've watched for a bit, or even for many seasons, then just turned off for good are:

Cane (watched the first half dozen and couldn't figure out why I should care about them at all)
Four Kings (turned off real quick)
Gilmore Girls (the last season, and maybe part of the season before that I'll never watch)
Masters of Horror (watched them all, but only because I couldn't believe how bad they were)
Masters of Science Fiction (lived up to Masters of Horror standards)
Nip/Tuck (said goodbye this season)
Threshold (watched about half of them)

On the other hand, I've stuck through many, many entire series, even if I found things to criticize or to wish they'd done differently or better.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Well, according to this, a brand new FNL placed 3rd behind a repeat of House and a repeat of Moonlight. That does not seem good.


The problem with these ratings is that they only include Live and Same-Day DVR viewing. This show is on Friday nights when most people, myself included, go out. I don't know about most Tivo/DVR users, but I almost never watch a show the same night I record it. So if I were to watch FNL on Saturday afternoon or Sunday night, my viewership would not be counted. I know they don't count dvr views long after the airing because the ads might have been time sensitive and no longer relevant by the time the show is watched. But how many ads are valid Friday night but not a day or two later? Now, I haven't watched one episode yet from season 2. They're all still saved up on my Tivo but if I don't watch them Friday night, it doesn't matter when I watch it in ratings land.

Plus, I read somewhere that ratings are down big time across the board from this time last year. Many, many people have obviously given up on TV for the time being and maybe that has played a part in the lower than desired ratings for FNL, especially since it's on Friday night. What types of ratings are they expecting for this time slot when the highest rated show for the night only came in 3 points higher. It's not like there is a show that drew 16 million viewers while FNL only drew 4 million.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Those are all decent arguments, but I find it unlikely that all those factors combine can account for losing to two reruns.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

TAsunder said:


> Those are all decent arguments, but I find it unlikely that all those factors combine can account for losing to two reruns.


I agree, I'm just not sure what they are expecting from FNL. It will never be a blockbuster show. I always assumed that Friday nights had lower expectations for ratings and that FNL's were acceptable. I think this might have something to do with the ratings being low but also with the fact that the former NBC Pres was a big FNL supporter. Maybe this new guy wants to clear out the old remnants, and that's why he's pushing 30 Rock so hard and letting FNL go.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

WhiskeyTango said:


> The problem with these ratings is that they only include Live and Same-Day DVR viewing. This show is on Friday nights when most people, myself included, go out. I don't know about most Tivo/DVR users, but I almost never watch a show the same night I record it.


If I'm not mistaken, Nielsen now takes into account watching the show, via DVR, anytime within the week of the show.


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

bengalfreak said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Nielsen now takes into account watching the show, via DVR, anytime within the week of the show.


Yea, I thought that was the case too but the link to the ratings at Zap2it says those ratings only include same day viewing so I just based my statements off of that.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> I like the mix, that is what drew me in, and what gets me AND Maggie BOTH loving the show equally (not many shows out there like that)
> 
> I don't want all football, but this season it has basically become a well done high school drama like any other.
> 
> ...


This show has to have 22 episodes to make a season. A high school football season only has about 10-12 games. They can't have a game every episode, and as they've developed the characters, their stories away from football are more interesting than some poorly acted football scenes any day of the week. 


marksman said:


> The problem with all that is the lineage.
> 
> I loved the original book when I read it almost 20 years ago it seems. Really good book and the book was about the town and the people but its central focus was on football.
> 
> ...


Of course it's different. The book focused on one thing. A single high-school football season, the players on that team, and how they won the state championship. Very narrow focus and easy to write a book about. The movie was essentially an adaptation of the book, and also easy to make a two-hour movie about a narrow subject like that. However, how are you going to make a 15-hour movie (one full TV season) about such a narrow subject? In order to fill in the extra time, you have to focus on the characters. And when the show gets renewed for a second 15-hour movie, you have to find things to focus on that are different from the first movie, so it's going to be even more about the characters, because they used up all the cliched, dramatic, last-second victories in the first season.


bengalfreak said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Nielsen now takes into account watching the show, via DVR, anytime within the week of the show.


Yes, but nobody but the networks see those numbers. The numbers the public sees are the overnights, and nobody ever bothers to go back and revise them a week later to include the DVR watchers.


TAsunder said:


> Those are all decent arguments, but I find it unlikely that all those factors combine can account for losing to two reruns.


It's no surprise that a rerun of House beat FNL. It's one of the most popular shows on TV. Not sure how a rerun of Moonlight beat it, but I'm sure it can be partially explained by the fact that CBS simply has more viewers than NBC.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> You have a Tivo, you shouldn't've had to set up a new season pass... it should've been automagically moved to the NBC station in your new area.


No, it doesn't work that way. The season pass would be set to the NBC station in the old area. The Tivo won't track a different NBC station in another area. That is a different channel in reality and to the Tivo.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

mattack said:


> You have a Tivo, you shouldn't've had to set up a new season pass... it should've been automagically moved to the NBC station in your new area.


I've moved three times since I got my TiVo and in each case I had to repeat Guided set-up due to a new channel line-up. And in each case my Season Passes were tied to the channel number and not the network and I had to delete all the old ones and set-up new ones for the new channel line-up.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> This show has to have 22 episodes to make a season. A high school football season only has about 10-12 games. They can't have a game every episode, and as they've developed the characters, their stories away from football are more interesting than some poorly acted football scenes any day of the week.


No they aren't. They are by and large completely boring rehashes of material covered by thousands of other shows throughout history. I'll take a poorly done football scene over unbelievably asinine race relation stories. They don't need to have a game every episode, but they shouldn't betray the very premise of their own show. Last season football was the central force tying everyone together in the town. Not any more. Now football is just something that happens once in a while for everyone except smash.

The reason last week's episode was better was because they brought back the central theme of the show. None of this cliched high school soap opera crap means much unless it ties directly into the emotional state of athletes playing under Friday Night Lights. Hopefully we actually see something football related. Seeing a bunch of emotional stuff is only meaningful in this show as it relates to the metaphor and literal story of sports.



> And when the show gets renewed for a second 15-hour movie, you have to find things to focus on that are different from the first movie, so it's going to be even more about the characters, because they used up all the cliched, dramatic, last-second victories in the first season.


No, it should be no more or less about the characters. The "season after" is a lot more interesting for a story than the season they won. It is a topic not often covered and one which has a lot of compelling stories. There is tons of untapped potential directly or indirectly relating to sports. Putting sports that far in the back is actually far more annoying than the greatly reduced role of Street in the story. Equally bad is the fact that the town itself seems to have no character anymore. Last season the town was a supporting character in the whole story. This season it's just a place with some buildings. What happened to all the people about town? Did they move to Austin?



> It's no surprise that a rerun of House beat FNL. It's one of the most popular shows on TV. Not sure how a rerun of Moonlight beat it, but I'm sure it can be partially explained by the fact that CBS simply has more viewers than NBC.


Right, but if Fox can re-run something at minimal cost and still get more advertisers than NBC, who spends a decent chunk of change creating new content, then what's the point? I'm sure a rerun of Deal or No Deal would fare about as well.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> However, how are you going to make a 15-hour movie (one full TV season) about such a narrow subject?


How is it a narrow subject? It is a pretty broad subject. I doubt they tapped all the possible story lines in 15 hours of tv. Sports can be a pretty compelling backdrop for drama. Certainly there are lots of ancillarie things you can tie back to it as well. They actually were provided with a wealth of potential content, most of which is not just rehashed from every other drama on tv. They have seemingly decided to abandon that wealth of potentially almost unique stories and go for the more tried and true picked over ground.



> In order to fill in the extra time, you have to focus on the characters. And when the show gets renewed for a second 15-hour movie, you have to find things to focus on that are different from the first movie, so it's going to be even more about the characters, because they used up all the cliched, dramatic, last-second victories in the first season.


There is not just drama from winning the championship. There is drama in trying to repeat, there is drama in falling apart, you can have issues where you end up with a new coach 4 years in, you should have NEW players coming every year. How do players deal with injuries, going to college? This recent fake recruitment story would be a perfect story line for a show like this. There are a million potential stories out there you could tie back to football. Drug use, cheating, best player leaving to go play for rival. Sorry but they did not come close to tapping the storylines available with the backdrop.

What are the chances most of the writers know enough about high school football let alone Texas High School football to properly write about it? I went to high school in Texas. I played High School Football in Texas. There are plenty of stories out there.

Like I said they have seemingly lost their focus from the origination of the story telling. The original Book was an amazingly compelling story that was played out with the backdrop of Texas High School Football. It was not the only story, just one story. There are plenty more out there.

By the way, even if they went that route, there is no guarantee the show would have gotten better ratings, in fact the ratings very well may have been worse.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

WhiskeyTango said:


> I agree, I'm just not sure what they are expecting from FNL. It will never be a blockbuster show. I always assumed that Friday nights had lower expectations for ratings and that FNL's were acceptable. I think this might have something to do with the ratings being low but also with the fact that the former NBC Pres was a big FNL supporter. Maybe this new guy wants to clear out the old remnants, and that's why he's pushing 30 Rock so hard and letting FNL go.


I'd guess that their expectations are at least that a new episode of FNL will beat a rerun of an obscure new show that's probably also destined for cancellation this year.

Fridays are a low expectation night in terms of raw numbers, but Friday shows are still expected to compete against the other networks' Friday shows. Losing to a rerun of House is not surprising; losing to a rerun of Moonlight is embarassing.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's no surprise that a rerun of House beat FNL. It's one of the most popular shows on TV. Not sure how a rerun of Moonlight beat it, but I'm sure it can be partially explained by the fact that CBS simply has more viewers than NBC.


That's a ridiculous excuse for a show that is performing horribly in the ratings. The fact is that, although you and I like it, the grand majority of Americans pretty much hate it. It was given tons of advertising and a nice cushy time slot last season and it never rated at all. We are in the overwhelming minority and this show is going to go away.


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

Can we all agree that the show is different this year? Personally, I am in the camp that doesn't like the new, OC, 90210 style and wild stories. I like football. I watch it for the great acting like everybody else, but I need the football themes as the main backdrop that drives most everything else. Coach and Tami can act their asses off, but it doesn't save the show for me if the storylines swing wildly one week to next. I understand that some people don't care for the football and don't need it and like the show regardless. But even those of you in that camp have to admit that the show this year has a different emphasis than last year.

It comes down to taste. You can't criticize someone for not liking the show as much this year or liking it more this year. It's different and some like it more, others like it less. Either way, not enough people like it and sadly it looks like it's nearing the end.


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Charlutz said:


> Can we all agree that the show is different this year? Personally, I am in the camp that doesn't like the new, OC, 90210 style and wild stories. I like football. I watch it for the great acting like everybody else, but I need the football themes as the main backdrop that drives most everything else. Coach and Tami can act their asses off, but it doesn't save the show for me if the storylines swing wildly one week to next. I understand that some people don't care for the football and don't need it and like the show regardless. But even those of you in that camp have to admit that the show this year has a different emphasis than last year.
> 
> It comes down to taste. You can't criticize someone for not liking the show as much this year or liking it more this year. It's different and some like it more, others like it less. Either way, not enough people like it and sadly it looks like it's nearing the end.


Agree with pretty much everything said there. I love this show, but I'm starting to miss the football part of it.

Having been a fan of Arrested Development and Sports Night, I've made my peace with the ratings reality and am ready to let this show go if NBC doesn't renew it (though I will shed a tear if it happens). AD got 2 seasons that the numbers would make you think it didn't really deserve, so I'm thankful to the TV Gods for that.


----------



## Roadblock (Apr 5, 2006)

Count me in the season 1 camp. That was one of my favorite seasons of any show all-time. I agree with the posters above saying that last season had the right mix of football and high school drama. Last season the show was mainly about the football team's pursuit of a championship and the coach's family dynamics. I didn't particularly like how every football game ended with a crazy long touchdown pass or other unrealistic comeback victory, but it was still exciting. 

This season, while there has still been a little football, and some time spent on the coach's family, I believe the show has been seriously compromised by spending way too much time on the supporting characters, following their on-again, off-again relationships that go nowhere, and a shift from football to volleyball. Volleyball?!? Really? I think Coach Taylor and his family made season one great, and I think that storyline has been greatly diminished in season two. The coach isn't getting much to work with. I would be surprised if the show made it to a third season after this one.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

dswallow said:


> Last week had one great scene. It was the 14th episode of the season. Not a particularly great track record.
> 
> That's the problem. In season 1 there probably wasn't a single episode that didn't have several great scenes, and overall a great storyline and character development, and, well, just plain good, smart writing AND acting almost all around.
> 
> And you simply cannot, without lying, say the same thing about season 2. At all. Not even as a white lie. Season 2, by comparison, just sucks. The greatness is gone. It has great moments... moments that we come to appreciate greatly because they've become so very, very rare. But they do not add up to anything like season 1 was almost continuously from beginning to end.


Then, apparently, we can agree to disagree.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Zevida said:


> I've moved three times since I got my TiVo and in each case I had to repeat Guided set-up due to a new channel line-up. And in each case my Season Passes were tied to the channel number and not the network and I had to delete all the old ones and set-up new ones for the new channel line-up.


That shouldn't be the case if the SP was on the same actual channel. IOW, if it's on a cable network, then that's the same channel everywhere in the country. If you move from one place to a second place with the _same_ NBC affilate, that's still the same channel and the SP should still work after guided setup. A move from place A to place B with different network affiliates will kill season passes for shows on those affiliates, though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Roadblock said:


> This season, while there has still been a little football, and some time spent on the coach's family, I believe the show has been seriously compromised by spending way too much time on the supporting characters, following their on-again, off-again relationships that go nowhere, and a shift from football to volleyball. Volleyball?!? Really? I think Coach Taylor and his family made season one great, and I think that storyline has been greatly diminished in season two. The coach isn't getting much to work with. I would be surprised if the show made it to a third season after this one.


C'mon, give me a break. They've shown volleyball maybe three times, for probably a grand total of three minutes this season. I wouldn't say they've shifted the focus to volleyball.

And you're complaining about them spending time on supporting characters, but did it ever occur to you that they're trying to turn them into more prominent characters? Just because Coach and Tami are the best actors and best storylines in the show doesn't mean that they can't start bringing more characters to the forefront.

But don't get me wrong, I agree that S1 was much better than S2, but I can't understand why people are having such a problem with S2. It's still a great show with great writing and acting.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> C'mon, give me a break. They've shown volleyball maybe three times, for probably a grand total of three minutes this season. I wouldn't say they've shifted the focus to volleyball.
> 
> And you're complaining about them spending time on supporting characters, but did it ever occur to you that they're trying to turn them into more prominent characters? Just because Coach and Tami are the best actors and best storylines in the show doesn't mean that they can't start bringing more characters to the forefront.
> 
> But don't get me wrong, I agree that S1 was much better than S2, but I can't understand why people are having such a problem with S2. It's still a great show with great writing and acting.


Well put. I do agree that S2 started on the wrong foot, but I still maintain it has developed nicely. I, too, don't understand the lack of love for S2.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Well put. I do agree that S2 started on the wrong foot, but I still maintain it has developed nicely. I, too, don't understand the lack of love for S2.


Ironically, it's "love" itself that makes me no longer love it. Like may shows (especially NBC shows, for some reason), this show is sinking in a quagmire of endless permutations of love stories that aren't really all that interesting. We've got landry and tyra, landry and jean, seracen and julie, seracen and his cheerleader, seracen and the live-in nurse, street and lyla, street and the waitress, street and the psycho, riggins and lyla, riggins and the neighbor, lyla and the preacher, buddy and his ex wife, riggins' brother and the neighbor, julie and the swede, julie and her teacher, tami and the new guidance counselor, and probably several others that I missed.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Ironically, it's "love" itself that makes me no longer love it. Like may shows (especially NBC shows, for some reason), this show is sinking in a quagmire of endless permutations of love stories that aren't really all that interesting. We've got landry and tyra, landry and jean, seracen and julie, seracen and his cheerleader, seracen and the live-in nurse, street and lyla, street and the waitress, street and the psycho, riggins and lyla, riggins and the neighbor, lyla and the preacher, buddy and his ex wife, riggins' brother and the neighbor, julie and the swede, julie and her teacher, tami and the new guidance counselor, and probably several others that I missed.


tami and her ex
street and the tatoo girl (first season, in Austin)

(oh, and for someone who hates the show, you sure do pay attention and have a good memory about it )


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

mrowe8 said:


> Ridiculous. This is the best show on TV.


Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> tami and her ex
> street and the tatoo girl (first season, in Austin)
> 
> (oh, and for someone who hates the show, you sure do pay attention and have a good memory about it )


I don't hate the show, just the direction it has gone this season. It's not beyond redemption and still has some good moments. I just don't agree that it's still a great show anymore. Just because it used to be a great show and still has the same characters doesn't mean it's still great. They took away the heart of the show and replaced it with days of our lives. Kind of sad.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> tami and her ex
> street and the tatoo girl (first season, in Austin)


Riggins and Tyra (first season)


----------



## skweaz (Feb 19, 2004)

I just caught an interview with Kyle Chandler and Brad Leland on our local radio station. While they seemed optimistic about completing the back 7 episodes, (even mentioning coming back for season 3) they ultimately don't know what the fate of the show is.

It was on Jeff Ward's show, I think they should have the podcast available tomorrow: http://www.590klbj.com/Podcasts/


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

EMoMoney said:


> Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings.


By that logic, Friends was an incredibly funny show and Arrested Development was not.


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

EMoMoney said:


> Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings.


By your logic, American Idol is the best show on TV.

*shudder*


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

Neenahboy said:


> By your logic, American Idol is the best show on TV.
> 
> *shudder*


I didn't say the best show has to have the best ratings. To say FNL is the "Best show on TV" is a bit of a stretch. There's no need to shudder.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

EMoMoney said:


> I didn't say the best show has to have the best ratings. To say FNL is the "Best show on TV" is a bit of a stretch. There's no need to shudder.


What you said was if it doesn't have good ratings it can't be a good show. That's just sheer nonsense. But "good show" is subjective, while "good ratings" is not, so we could argue this until the cows come home.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

Bierboy said:


> What you said was if it doesn't have good ratings it can't be a good show. That's just sheer nonsense. But "good show" is subjective, while "good ratings" is not, so we could argue this until the cows come home.


Nope, sorry. My response to it being called "the best show on TV" was "Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings." This not the same is me saying "if it doesn't have good ratings it can't be a good show."


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

EMoMoney said:


> Nope, sorry. My response to it being called "the best show on TV" was "Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings." This not the same is me saying "if it doesn't have good ratings it can't be a good show."


As I stated, we can argue this ad infinitum....I choose not to.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Kristin from E! is reporting that FNL may wrap up with a 2-hour movie.

http://www.eonline.com/gossip/krist...&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=rss_kristin


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> yeah... But note how little activity is in this thread compared to other shows.
> 
> People watch. But not many. Not enough. Or, not enough in a way an advertiser cares about. And that's really all that matters.


Yeah, and now they'll replace that time slot with a show that even fewer people watch.


----------



## EchoBravo (Apr 20, 2002)

Am I misreading something or am I the only one more concerned about the implication of the quoted comment regarding 30 Rock?

Is the prez saying 30 Rock is on the bubble... Great show, but poor ratings.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

EchoBravo said:


> Am I misreading something or am I the only one more concerned about the implication of the quoted comment regarding 30 Rock?
> 
> Is the prez saying 30 Rock is on the bubble... Great show, but poor ratings.


The prez is not saying anything, IMHO. I have yet to see ANYTHING that tells me that the "interview" is nothing but satire, a la The Onion.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> The prez is not saying anything, IMHO. I have yet to see ANYTHING that tells me that the "interview" is nothing but satire, a la The Onion.


You realize you're the only person suggesting that the interview is satire, right? Considering the number of places that picked up the interview and ran with it, it's hard for me to understand how you're coming to that conclusion. Is it just the snarky nature of the NBC president's responses?


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

NBC looks to be shopping FNL around:

Friday Night's "Hail Mary" May Involve CW, TNT

So maybe it's not dead yet.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

TNT would be a really good fit, IMO. Much better than the other choices.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

Sure..TNT...why not.
Whatever it takes to keep it going...hey, maybe they could work in some fun new storylines on cable.


----------



## bengalfreak (Oct 20, 2002)

The budget will surely take a hit if it goes cable.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

bengalfreak said:


> The budget will surely take a hit if it goes cable.


It doesn't strike me as an especially expensive show to film. Minimal sets, handheld camera, no-name cast.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

A two-hour finale movie would work for me, although putting it on TNT would be great.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

bengalfreak said:


> The budget will surely take a hit if it goes cable.


I've heard somewhere that FNL is one of the most inexpensive and efficient shows on television. There aren't many production costs to cut.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

TNT probably would fire Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton and bring in D.W. Moffett Sweeney and Stephanie Niznik from the late and unlamented _Life Is Wild._


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

EMoMoney said:


> Nope, sorry. My response to it being called "the best show on TV" was "Obviously not if it's not getting the ratings." This not the same is me saying "if it doesn't have good ratings it can't be a good show."


 Those two statements mean exactly the same thing. I've parsed and disected them and I can't find a difference. They both say, in double negatives, that FNL must get good ratings to be a good show (or the best show on TV).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

serumgard said:


> I've heard somewhere that FNL is one of the most inexpensive and efficient shows on television. There aren't many production costs to cut.


It's all relative. It may be among the most efficient scripted dramas on network TV, but I'm sure it's still got a budget of at least a $1 mil per episode, and that's too expensive for a cable network when the ratings don't justify it.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

If TNT can afford to do The Closer or Saving Grace, it can afford a 13-episode season of Friday Night Lights. Which I will be happy to watch, as long as they keep the original cast. Bring in D.W. and Stephanie, though, and I'm outta there.


----------



## Sparty99 (Dec 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's all relative. It may be among the most efficient scripted dramas on network TV, but I'm sure it's still got a budget of at least a $1 mil per episode, and that's too expensive for a cable network when the ratings don't justify it.


I have absolutely no way of backing this up, but I'd be amazed if FNL costs as much as Rescue Me or The Shield or The Closer. As Graymalkin said, if TNT can afford The Closer and Saving Grace, I'd say they'd be hard-pressed to come up with an excuse to cut FNL's budget.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Those two statements mean exactly the same thing. I've parsed and disected them and I can't find a difference. They both say, in double negatives, that FNL must get good ratings to be a good show (or the best show on TV).


Thank you.


----------



## rickmeoff (Aug 25, 2006)

this brings back memories of 'deadwood,' when they were supposed to wrap up the season in 2 - 2 hour movies.

instead, we got nuttin.

i hope this series gets another shot to at least finish up.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

So is every show filmed in ultra shaky cam mode...??

I tried watching an episode and the camera wouldn't stop bobbing and weaving for one second..,,,gave me a headache trying to focus on what was going on...had to stop watching.

So is this par for the course?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Alfer2003 said:


> So is every show filmed in ultra shaky cam mode...??
> 
> I tried watching an episode and the camera wouldn't stop bobbing and weaving for one second..,,,gave me a headache trying to focus on what was going on...had to stop watching.
> 
> So is this par for the course?


what other shows are you talking about?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Alfer2003 said:


> So is every show filmed in ultra shaky cam mode...??
> 
> I tried watching an episode and the camera wouldn't stop bobbing and weaving for one second..,,,gave me a headache trying to focus on what was going on...had to stop watching.
> 
> So is this par for the course?


Interesting that you point that out. I've read stuff about how this show was filmed in that style, but never once noticed it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> what other shows are you talking about?


I think he's talking about other episodes of FNL.


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

Sad news about the player that was hurt and inspired FNL.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-obit-edwards&prov=ap&type=lgns

Player paralyzed in HS football game dies at 20; inspired pilot of "Friday Night Lights"
SAN ANTONIO (AP)-David Edwards, who was paralyzed during a 2003 high school football playoff game and whose injury was fictionalized in the TV show "Friday Night Lights," has died. He was 20.

Edwards, stricken with pneumonia since late last year, stopped breathing Monday night and slipped into a coma. He died Wednesday at Northeast Methodist Hospital.

Edwards would have turned 21 on Saturday.

A junior defensive back at San Antonio Madison, Edwards broke his neck when he collided with an Austin Westlake wide receiver when both were reaching for a pass during a November 2003 playoff game.

Director and producer Peter Berg attended that game. The 2006 pilot episode featured a high school football player who breaks his neck and is paralyzed while trying to make a tackle.

I will miss FNL and as someone with a spinal injury I can relate to some of what he had to live with. RIP and Sympathies for the family.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Bettamojo5 said:


> Sad news about the player that was hurt and inspired FNL.
> http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-obit-edwards&prov=ap&type=lgns
> 
> Player paralyzed in HS football game dies at 20; inspired pilot of Friday Night Lights
> ...


Because of these unfortunate events, NBC really ought to bring FNL back for one final 2 hour episode, dedicated to him. They could use this to tie up loose ends too!


----------



## BriGuy20 (Aug 4, 2005)

Alfer2003 said:


> So is every show filmed in ultra shaky cam mode...??
> 
> I tried watching an episode and the camera wouldn't stop bobbing and weaving for one second..,,,gave me a headache trying to focus on what was going on...had to stop watching.
> 
> So is this par for the course?


Quarterlife (lowercase like thirtysomething but it's starting a sentence) is filmed similarly, but they're exiling it to Bravo and likely cancelling it once it runs all its episodes.


----------

