Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Television > Tv Carnivale > Deadwood
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 3 Topic 230 of 261
Post > Topic >>

Deadwood

by "Official X-3 Hater" <rougesoldout@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jun 2, 2006 at 08:16 PM

When word filtered out recently that HBO was letting the actors on 
"Deadwood" out of their contracts -- essentially canceling the series 
without actually canceling it -- fans were not the only ones who were 
stunned. It was a strange move that surprised many in the industry
because, 
well, HBO will be the first to tell you that "It's not TV -- it's HBO."
What 
that slogan implies, of course, is that HBO does things differently.

Apparently not.

In the end, all roads lead back to the bank. And if there's any issue that

places HBO squarely in the same realm as everybody else in the industry, 
from broadcast networks to ad-sup****ted cable channels, that issue is
cash. 
Whether or not it's TV or HBO is up for debate. But this isn't: It's
always 
about the money. Some stories just have the same, sad ending, no matter 
where they play out.

But just because HBO acted like, well, Fox, doesn't mean it should suffer 
the whiny backlash of outraged fans. And yet, that's what's happening now,

with Internet campaigns hell-bent on saving "Deadwood" and at the same
time 
organizing the National Cancel HBO Day. The first is understandable, the 
second is asinine.

On the plus side, this is the kind of devotion and fervor "Deadwood" has 
aroused, with its Shakespeare-in-the-mud, swear-word-marathon mix of
bloody 
drama and dark deeds of men (and hookers). HBO should be proud of that.
It's 
the kind of series that gets people talking. And normally that's exactly
the 
kind of series HBO wants, since word of mouth drives subscriptions, and 
subscriptions are more im****tant than ratings to a pay-cable outlet like 
HBO.

Though the acclaimed foul-mouthed Western -- a magnificent drama, with 
nothing like it anywhere on the dial -- will start Season 3 on June 11 and

run a full 12 episodes, that's the end of the run. Creator David Milch had

always wanted to do four "chapters" of the "Deadwood" saga, essentially as

long as the lawless town managed to keep itself a separate entity from God

and country. And there was never any indication from HBO that one of its 
most acclaimed series would not return.

So the move by HBO caught most people by surprise. Although HBO has not 
officially canceled the series, chances of it surviving are slim and none 
and -- well, you know the rest of that story. While Season 4 is not an 
impossibility, once actors are let out of their contracts, any future work

they take invariably leaves them unable to come back. Multiply that by an 
entire cast, and you can forget Season 4 (theoretically, the series could
be 
salvaged at the 11th hour if Ian McShane, who plays Al Swearengen, would 
return; without him, forget it).

Why did this happen? A complicated set of issues that revolve around
money, 
it would seem. The bottom line is that "Deadwood" is expensive to make, 
cannot possibly be cut for use elsewhere (even on ad-sup****ted cable),
would 
not be co-financed by any other production company in Season 4 (unlike the

very expensive historical drama "Rome," where costs are offset by foreign 
producers other than HBO) and would require HBO to pay the "Deadwood"
actors 
to sit around while notorious clock-killer Milch works on a different HBO 
series, "John From Cincinnati." Nothing dramatically new in all of that 
except, and this a big exception, HBO balked at paying the tab.

Welcome to network television, everybody! Here we cut corners to use as 
floatation devices when the cor****ate drones cast us off to sea!

And yet, why should HBO suddenly get frugal? That's the current mystery, 
which remains unsolved and is, for your purposes, probably unknowable. But

both Milch and HBO are at least partially to blame here. Conventional
wisdom 
is you keep a guy like Milch -- brilliant but scattered -- on a short
leash 
or you might as well start tossing cash in the fireplace. Letting him keep

two plates spinning seems indulgent and, given the result, disastrous. 
Though it might be hard to fault Milch for taking HBO's unparalleled 
creative freedom and largesse as a ripe op****tunity, it's hard to buy into

the notion that he had no inkling this one-for-the-other scenario might 
happen. Also, HBO did offer him a short order of six, instead of 12 
episodes. He turned it down. Even if he doesn't like short orders, Milch
has 
been around long enough to know that HBO is nothing if not pliant. Give
them 
six, they'll eventually want 12.

But it didn't happen. And even though Milch is now re****tedly trying to 
finance a big chunk of Season 4, it'll only end in tears. And you know the

rule: No crying in "Deadwood." Which brings up the side issue to HBO 
suddenly acting like a TV channel with a working accounting department:
Some 
people are so mad at HBO they want to cancel their subscriptions.

Now that's rich. The one channel that has almost never let anyone down
turns 
off the cash spigot and people cry for blood? HBO may have a history of 
lavish spending and subsidizing works of outright genius -- "The Wire" -- 

but it's still a business. Viewers certainly have a right to cancel a 
service they pay for, no argument there. But at least anecdotally the
reason 
people get HBO in the first place is to watch quality, noncommercial 
programming of the highest standards.

So now they want "NCIS"? That's a tough theory to sell. It's the cutting
off 
your nose to spite your face sales gambit, and that's never very
successful 
in the end.

It's fine to be outraged that "Deadwood" will leave too soon, that story 
lines will go unfinished, that everyone will suffer from not enough
McShane 
in their lives. But if you cancel HBO, that means what, exactly? That you 
don't want to see "Entourage" or "Extras" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm" or
"Big 
Love" or "Rome" or the last eight episodes of "The Sopranos"? This is a 
channel that doesn't launch many duds. Try as it might, Showtime isn't
even 
in the same league as HBO. Only FX comes close. And you already get that. 
Two more seasons, possibly, of "The Wire" -- television's meatiest, most 
finely nuanced milieu -- and you'd pass on that? Just a reminder: Nobody 
else makes that series.

Of course, this is a theory not lost on "Deadwood" fans. Nobody but HBO 
would have made "Deadwood" in the first place. So would you take 36 out of
a 
possible 48 episodes of brilliance -- or none?

By the way, Milch's "John From Cincinnati" is described as "surf noir," 
which sounds just as ludicrous as "Deadwood" did before anyone saw it.
What 
if that turns out to be even better? Will you be happy with "Prison Break"

on Fox instead?

Cancel at your own peril.

E-mail Tim Goodman at tgoodman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 You can read his blog, the

Bastard Machine, at sfgate.com/blogs/goodman.


-- 
Beating a dead horse one X-Men at a time.
 




 3 Posts in Topic:
Deadwood
"Official X-3 Hater&  2006-06-02 20:16:52 
Re: Deadwood
"bigdawg" <b  2006-06-02 19:12:29 
Re: Deadwood
Sparky Spartacus <Spar  2006-06-04 19:34:21 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Tue Oct 7 15:48:13 CDT 2008.