http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SecondSeasonDownfall

The vast majority of television shows don't make it very far. Networks order dozens of new series every year, launch the most promising ones in the fall... and almost immediately begin cancelling ones that don't live up to expectations, replacing them with the shows that didn't make the first string of launches (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MidseasonReplacement), in the hope of eventually getting a schedule of hits. This is the root of Too Good to Last (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooGoodToLast): the network model simply isn't generous to shows that don't get off to a healthy start.

But for all the dozens of shows that fail in their first year, there are a few that survive this initial culling, complete their first season, and are renewed for a second. Smooth sailing from now on, right?

Well...not always. Sometimes nobody expected the show to make it, and so the writers and producers pulled out all the stops in the first year (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriesFauxnale), leaving nothing to work with for the next season (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostScriptSeason). Sometimes a show with a novel concept inspires imitators that either pull off the gimmick more skillfully, or are so ubiquitious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DuelingShows) that viewers become bored (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny) with both the original and the knockoffs. Sometimes Executive Meddling (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExecutiveMeddling) is to blame, especially if the second season coincides with a change in network leadership. Sometimes there's no clear cause at all; the show simply ran out of steam, and Seasonal Rot (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeasonalRot) kicked in early. In any case, there are a lot of shows that make it through a successful first season, only to fall victim to a Sophomore Slump (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SophomoreSlump) and get canceled by the end of a disappointing second season. In the end, these shows are Short Runners.

Compare Jumping the Shark (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark). Contrast Long Runners (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LongRunners).

This topic kind of goes w/ this past thread:
TV shows that burned hot, then burned out almost as fast (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=262676)

Basically, the reversal of "growing a beard":
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ExecutiveMeddling/LiveActionTV

Andromeda executive producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe was constantly fighting with the Tribune suits, and he was ultimately fired halfway through Season 2. The plot of the show changed drastically at this point; Dylan's attempts to create a new Commonwealth were rushed to completion so he could be at odds with them instead.

The John Larroquette Show started off as a quirky off-beat comedy focusing on the main character's 12 Step recovery from alcoholism. Network executives forced the producers to eliminate the 12 Step material after the first season, which took much of the original unique and edgy flavor away from the show. From there it turned into another "single people with relationship problems" type of show, the exact sitcom stereotype the series was trying to stray from. John Hemingway also lost his cool, brooding, intellectual demeanor in the process. Larroquette himself despaired when they moved his character, who worked as a night-shift bus station manager, out of his rat-trap boarding house to a nice apartment that he obviously couldn't afford with a couch facing the cameras. The Hooker with a Heart of Gold character had to find another career, too.

Lois and Clark suffered from two instances of executive meddling:
The first instance was between seasons one and two, when ABC forced the writers to retool the show. They added more action (the show was about Lois and Clark, not so much about Superman), more sex (because men are pervs), less Cat Grant (despite being a nymphomaniac gossip columnist, they'd rather sex everyone else up than have an extraneous character in a show that was becoming less and less about the Daily Planet), and they switched Jimmy Olsen out for a younger actor (some fans think it was because the first guy looked too much like the lead; it was likely both). The second instance was their insistence on removing focus from the relationship. Clark couldn't reveal his Secret Identity. They could only kinda sorta hint that she already knew. When he proposed to her, they gave them a whole arc devoted to their wedding. The executives made them switch Lois out for an (evil?) clone at the last minute. They finally got married towards the end, and found a foundling. And the Execs canceled it because it had "run its course." It would not have "run its course" if not for the fake-out wedding, after which they lost a large amount of their viewership.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retool

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DorkAge/LiveActionTV

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TheyChangedItNowItSucks/LiveActionTV

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeasonalRot

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SecondSeasonDownfall

GLEE

Great first season...admittedly pretty messy at points, but overall very good. But Season 2 was a disaster and it only got worse from there.

It's a bit premature, but Last Man Standing looks to be heading that route w/ changing Kristen's actress (all of the comments that I've read thus far, universally dislike Amanda Fuller in the role when compared to Alexandra Krosney), to Tim Allen seemingly wanting to turn this show into a modern day (heavy-handed) All in the Family (after the first season was for all intents and purposes, Home Improvement if Tim Taylor had all girls for kids), w/ his character being Archie Bunker.

I thought the American Version of Men Behaving Badly was a decent show but, Ron Eldard and Justine Bateman left after the first season and were replaced by Ken Marino and Jenica Bergere the show tanked from there.

GLEE

Great first season...admittedly pretty messy at points, but overall very good. But Season 2 was a disaster and it only got worse from there.

Desperate Housewives followed the same path. Interesting strong first season, a lackluster second season and then went downhill. At least unlike Glee, Marc Cherry decided to end DH.

Buck Rogers Holy Shark Jump Batman!

whatever charm after mash had in season was gone in season 2 after the network messed with it

i meant whatever charm it had in season 1

Buck Rogers Holy Shark Jump Batman!
Season 2 had way less enjoyable episodes. I can count on my hand the number of the ones from that time I actually liked.

I can't believe no one's mentioned Mork & Mindy. That show is the EPITOME of a second season downfall.

Desperate Housewives followed the same path. Interesting strong first season, a lackluster second season and then went downhill. At least unlike Glee, Marc Cherry decided to end DH.
It took Marc Cherry long enough though.

Not that it was ever a great series, but I believe the second season of HEROES was it's downfall.

I can't believe no one's mentioned Mork & Mindy. That show is the EPITOME of a second season downfall.

http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2007/09/retoolers.html

That reminds me that these guys -- whose shows were usually evil but phenomenally successful -- could write a book on how to re-tool a sitcom: almost every show they were ever involved with was substantially re-tooled in the middle of its run, sometimes several times. Like their mentor Garry Marshall, they didn't do the whole artistic-integrity thing and would basically do anything to keep a show on the air, whether it was bowing to network demands, playing up any character who became popular, or changing the setting. Let's look at some of the shows produced by Miller-Boyett or some variant thereof (Miller-Milkis, Miller-Milkis-Boyett -- basically, Miller, a former assistant to Billy Wilder, was the constant factor in all this):

- Happy Days: one of the most famous and successful (commercially anyway) re-toolings ever. Then it was re-tooled several times to adjust for the departure of Ron Howard and the departure/return of Joanie and Chachi.

- Laverne and Shirley: they moved the whole show from Milwaukee (Miller was from Milwaukee and it was presumably his idea to set these shows there) to Hollywood, then did it for a year without Shirley (or Lenny).

- Mork and Mindy (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6956070&postID=107402827763290035): Completely overhauled (http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2007/09/worst-series-retool-ever.html) in its second season.

- Angie: this was one of the few older-demographic comedies this team did (Bosom Buddies, which underwent a mild second-season re-tool, was another). Since all their shows were attempts to cash in on the success of something else, I suspect that this was done in response to the launch of ABC/Paramount's Taxi, which briefly made it OK for the network to do smart adult comedies. Then Taxi's ratings tanked and they abandoned that pretty quickly. Anyway, despite a successful first season, Angie had a new setting and had dropped some characters by the time the second season started.

- Perfect Strangers: early on, Larry and Balki were working for a mean shop owner played by Ernie Sabella. In the third season, they were working a big glamorous Chicago paper. Apparently the producers had decided that people didn't want to see the characters working a depressing dead-end job like Laverne and Shirley; this was the '80s and audiences wanted successful people.

- The Hogan Family: one of the most notorious and publicized re-toolings of the '80s, started as a show with Valerie Harper and wound up as a show about Sandy Duncan.

- Going Places: a show I never saw, but which according to the linked article had the characters change jobs/settings in the middle of its short run.

- Family Matters: the focus of the Time article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972641,00.html?iid=chix-sphere) that started this post; it starts off as a Perfect Strangers spinoff and suddenly it's a show about Urkel, whom the producers embraced just as they once embraced the Fonz.

Just about the only show on that list that didn't get heavily re-tooled was Full House, and even that got changed a lot before it first aired (change of premise, and an unused pilot with a different actor).

I don't have much to say to sum up, except that Tom Miller and co. are a test case for what producers can accomplish if they don't really care what their shows were originally supposed to be about. If they throw the whole integrity and plausibility notion aside and just rejigger every show to emphasize whatever the public likes at a given point, they can actually be pretty darn successful. Frightening, but successful.

Perfect Strangers moved from Twinkie's store to the newspaper in its third season, not its second.

I liked Last Man Standing last year, and I hate 98% of all modern comedies. After the first episode, I'm giving it one more and if it doesn't get a lot better, I'm done.

Mork and Mindy w/o a doubt! And combine the changes w/ the new timeslot and having to go up against Archie Bunker's Place and a big dip was bound to happen.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century - I also partially blame star Gil Gerard for insisting on some of the changes too.

Dragnet (2003) - The 1st season of this revival of Dragnet was basically like the modern-day version of Dragnet. Then by the 2nd season, not only did Ed O'Neill appear in less scenes (at partially his insistence) but they added more characters to the show (including one of which that was played by Eva Longoria) and remaning the show to L.A. Dragnet.

I must mention The WB's "Popular", a fresh, new satire of teen drama's it's first year, it became what it mocked by it's second season.

I must mention The WB's "Popular", a fresh, new satire of teen drama's it's first year, it became what it mocked by it's second season.
The network wanted it to be more like Dawson's Creek. An odd request, since Popular basically was a spoof of Dawson's Creek! I loved Dawson's Creek though. I miss The WB.

This is an old one that's not too well known because it was on The-N but The Best Years. Started out as an awesome college drama and then the second season they completely ruined it by dropping the heavy drama and making it a light hearted show.

The network wanted it to be more like Dawson's Creek. An odd request, since Popular basically was a spoof of Dawson's Creek! I loved Dawson's Creek though. I miss The WB.

The same sort of thing happened w/ She Spies (i.e. becoming what it was originally mocking in the second season).

While it's not really the fault of the producers/writers, I'll say 8 Simple Rules... after John Ritter suddenly died early into the second season.

The same sort of thing happened w/ She Spies (i.e. becoming what it was originally mocking in the second season).

While it's not really the fault of the producers/writers, I'll say 8 Simple Rules... after John Ritter suddenly died early into the second season.i dont think david spade was a good fit for the show ether

The same sort of thing happened w/ She Spies (i.e. becoming what it was originally mocking in the second season).

While it's not really the fault of the producers/writers, I'll say 8 Simple Rules... after John Ritter suddenly died early into the second season.
I'm not familiar with She Spies, but I agree 100% about 8 Simple Rules. :wave:

The same sort of thing happened w/ She Spies (i.e. becoming what it was originally mocking in the second season).

While it's not really the fault of the producers/writers, I'll say 8 Simple Rules... after John Ritter suddenly died early into the second season.
I don't think 8 Simple Rules was awful after John Ritter died, it just wasn't as good as it could have been.

Call me crazy, but I actually liked the addition of David Spade.

Twin Peaks

I must mention The WB's "Popular", a fresh, new satire of teen drama's it's first year, it became what it mocked by it's second season.
Yeah, the same thing basically happened to Glee, I think.

Probably not a coincidence that both shows were made by the same guy (Ryan Murphy).

The same sort of thing happened w/ She Spies (i.e. becoming what it was originally mocking in the second season).

While it's not really the fault of the producers/writers, I'll say 8 Simple Rules... after John Ritter suddenly died early into the second season.
8 Simple Rules was just one of the weirdest situations in TV history. I mean, how do you go on after that? Those episodes right after he died are some of the most uncomfortable TV ever.

Yeah, the same thing basically happened to Glee, I think.

Probably not a coincidence that both shows were made by the same guy (Ryan Murphy).


8 Simple Rules was just one of the weirdest situations in TV history. I mean, how do you go on after that? Those episodes right after he died are some of the most uncomfortable TV ever.

I honestly haven't bothered to watch 8 Simple Rules (I know that ABC Family airs two episodes each day) since it's network run on ABC. I too get extremely uncomfortable w/ the idea of watching the first season knowing full well that John Ritter is going to die well into the second season (when you think a show should "start to find it's groove" so to speak). They with all do respect, could've renamed the show If Dad Hadn't Died. Maybe part of it also has to do w/ the fact that my own father (even though he was much older than John Ritter at the time) suddenly died of a heart aliment.

You can argue that the early 2000s weren't a very good or remarkable period for sitcoms on ABC anyway. I mean, their top sitcom at the time was if I'm not mistaken, According to Jim.

I can't believe no one's mentioned Mork & Mindy. That show is the EPITOME of a second season downfall.

Most definitely. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Well apparently ABC never heard that saying. They were all hopped up on "demographics" and told Garry Marshall to put some younger characters in there. It didn't work and M&M never got it's mojo back, IMO.

As for Lois & Clark, part of the show's downfall had to due with the firing of it's creator, Deborah Joy Levine, at the end of the first season. In a TV Guide interview, she laid out her plan for the show. She figured the show would run five seasons and in the last episode, Lois & Clark would finally come together. Once you take away the sexual tension like the L&S producers did by having them get together, it was over. Plus, Lex Luthor (John Shea) was written off the show, which didn't help either.

You can argue that the early 2000s weren't a very good or remarkable period for sitcoms on ABC anyway. I mean, their top sitcom at the time was if I'm not mistaken, According to Jim.
According to Jim was the highest rated ABC comedy for a period of time. I think most people, however, remember it more for ABC running it into the ground the last two-three seasons. In its first four seasons, According to Jim was routinely averaging over 10 million viewers. It took a hit after that (for whatever reason, I'm not quite sure) and just never recovered.

According to Jim was the highest rated ABC comedy for a period of time. I think most people, however, remember it more for ABC running it into the ground the last two-three seasons. In its first four seasons, According to Jim was routinely averaging over 10 million viewers. It took a hit after that (for whatever reason, I'm not quite sure) and just never recovered.

It was also among the most universally panned series in the last 25 years. I can't think of one positive thing that was ever said about that program. It clearly came on during a dark period for ABC comedy. It's hard to believe but after "Dharma & Greg" hit in 1997, it took ABC nearly two decades to be able to launch a solid comedy block. Between 1997 and 2008 ABC didn't have one single series that could be called a true success story. Certainly nothing approaching the top 10 or top 20 hits that had once made the network thrive. It was sad to see the network that was once home to "Roseanne", "Home Improvement", "Dharma & Greg", "Spin City" and many others turn into a network best known for "According to Jim" and "My Wife & Kids"...

[quote=yankeesrj12]According to Jim was the highest rated ABC comedy for a period of time. quote]

Which during that period meant almost nothing because ABC was stuck in 4th place for most of that period. It was being regularly beaten by NBC, CBS and Fox.

NBC still had it's Must-See TV comedies which were still performing well; and had several big tent-pole drama's that brought viewers in. CBS stuck a hit with it's mix of broad comedies and crime drama's and FOX was riding high on the success of "American Idol", successful sitcoms like "That 70's Show" and "Malcolm In The Middle" and the massive hit "24".

After "Dharma & Greg" and "Spin City" left the air and "Millionaire" quickly faded out of popularity it took ABC years to recover... "Modern Family" was the first viable long-term success story they had in ABC comedy development and that has turned into a money machine that has helped launch other sitcoms.

Which during that period meant almost nothing because ABC was stuck in 4th place for most of that period. It was being regularly beaten by NBC, CBS and Fox.

NBC still had it's Must-See TV comedies which were still performing well; and had several big tent-pole drama's that brought viewers in. CBS stuck a hit with it's mix of broad comedies and crime drama's and FOX was riding high on the success of "American Idol", successful sitcoms like "That 70's Show" and "Malcolm In The Middle" and the massive hit "24".

After "Dharma & Greg" and "Spin City" left the air and "Millionaire" quickly faded out of popularity it took ABC years to recover... "Modern Family" was the first viable long-term success story they had in ABC comedy development and that has turned into a money machine that has helped launch other sitcoms.
The data where According to Jim was the highest rated comedy was the season ABC had the huge launches of Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and LOST. I think ABC may have been in fourth that season, but they may have jumped a bit too.

[quote=yankeesrj12]The data where According to Jim was the highest rated comedy was the season ABC had the huge launches of Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and LOST. I think ABC may have been in fourth that season, but they may have jumped a bit too.[/quote

But those were all drama's that they launched and at this point ABC was considered a dead-zone for comedy. ATJ was basically not in any way considered a respectable series, nor was it considered a series that would be able to launch new comedies around. Saying it was the "highest rated ABC comedy" basically means nothing as ABC had very few comedy series at this point.

The data where According to Jim was the highest rated comedy was the season ABC had the huge launches of Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and LOST. I think ABC may have been in fourth that season, but they may have jumped a bit too.[/quote

But those were all drama's that they launched and at this point ABC was considered a dead-zone for comedy. ATJ was basically not in any way considered a respectable series, nor was it considered a series that would be able to launch new comedies around. Saying it was the "highest rated ABC comedy" basically means nothing as ABC had very few comedy series at this point.
10 million viewers is nowhere near awful. The show took a hit early on when ABC tried to counter-program it against Frasier. Had they not tried that so early, I think it could have gained a stronger following.

10 million viewers is nowhere near awful. The show took a hit early on when ABC tried to counter-program it against Frasier. Had they not tried that so early, I think it could have gained a stronger following.

Perhaps you are right and maybe people overlook this show when discussing ABC.

i will tell you this though, According to Jim never placed higher than #44 in the yearly ratings. It is definitely a big problem when your biggest comedy series isn't even in the top 40. Especially for a network that once dominated the top 20 series with comedy after comedy.

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps you are right and maybe people overlook this show when discussing ABC.

i will tell you this though, According to Jim never placed higher than #44 in the yearly ratings. It is definitely a big problem when your biggest comedy series isn't even in the top 40. Especially for a network that once dominated the top 20 series with comedy after comedy.

But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Talk about a show lasting longer than 5-6 seasons that never even had a Top 30 rating, let alone a Top 40 rating. YIKES!

I wonder how this show made it to 8 seasons with low ratings?

I wonder how this show made it to 8 seasons with low ratings?


Here is my take on what happened:

When it debuted in October 2001, ABC had only SIX comedies on the air. "Dharma & Greg" in it's final season, freshmen series "What About Joan", which last 19 episodes, "My Wife & Kids" in it's second season, never a massive hit, but rated highly enough to last until 2005; The Drew Carey Show, long past it's prime and at this point basically forgotten by ABC, and lastly, the poorly reviewed, poorly watched "Bob Patterson" starring Jason Alexander, which lasted all of 5 episodes.

Despite generally low ratings, ATJ seemed like a winner because frankly, ABC had nothing else to air during this time period. This is when ABC was stuck in fourth place for nearly half a decade after the quick decline of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" .

And for almost the entire next decade until the launch of "Modern Family" in 2009, ABC had no success in developing a long-lasting, ratings-winning sitcom. The most successful of the comedies launched in this period were "8 Simple Rules" and "George Lopez". 8SR looked to be a hit early on, ranking #46 in it's first year. However, the death of John Ritter and a move to Friday nights destroyed the show and it lasted only three seasons, ranking #90 for the TV season in it's final year. "George Lopez" ran for 8 seasons, but never ranked higher than 50th place in the year end ratings.


So I supposed that ABC was simply able to overlook the generally poor returns ATJ was getting because nothing else they aired was doing any better.

The Jeffersons

The show finished at #4 after season 1 and then after season 2 the show fell to #21.

I wonder how this show made it to 8 seasons with low ratings?
I think the biggest reason it lasted so long was the syndication money. ABC owns According to Jim and was going to make all profit for any additional episodes produced. I believe somewhere around season four/five it was sold into syndication to TBS. After that, despite low ratings, ABC ordered three more seasons as they would be making money for every episode produced, especially if they cut the cost per episode.

I think the biggest reason it lasted so long was the syndication money. ABC owns According to Jim and was going to make all profit for any additional episodes produced. I believe somewhere around season four/five it was sold into syndication to TBS. After that, despite low ratings, ABC ordered three more seasons as they would be making money for every episode produced, especially if they cut the cost per episode.

I do believe you hit the nail on the head.

Most definitely. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Well apparently ABC never heard that saying. They were all hopped up on "demographics" and told Garry Marshall to put some younger characters in there. It didn't work and M&M never got it's mojo back, IMO.

What's weird about that "logic" is that they already had a young teen in the story, Eugene. He was written off after S1.

I don't count Mearth as a "younger character". :eek: :crazy: :lol:

According to Jim and George Lopez have been syndication mainstays in my area -- Acc. to Jim in particular has been pretty much HUGE in that regard, and the only way I saw them (never really watched either as first-run).

According to Jim and George Lopez have been syndication mainstays in my area -- Acc. to Jim in particular has been pretty much HUGE in that regard, and the only way I saw them (never really watched either as first-run).

You are right, both of these shows have gained larger followings in syndication. I believe, especially, George Lopez is more popular now than it ever was in first-run.

You are right, both of these shows have gained larger followings in syndication. I believe, especially, George Lopez is more popular now than it ever was in first-run.

Yup is glued to Nick@Nite like Good Times is glued to Antenna TV:lol:

What's weird about that "logic" is that they already had a young teen in the story, Eugene. He was written off after S1.

I don't count Mearth as a "younger character". :eek: :crazy: :lol:

What gets me is that the show was not only a smash hit out the gate, but found it's way creatively relatively quickly.

The show was balanced in terms of younger and older cast members and most importantly, they had chemistry together and it WORKED.

To gut the older cast members in favor of mediocre replacements who are younger and satisfy a "demographic" better was crazy. Had they left well enough alone, perhaps the show would have continued to be a hit and lasted more than four seasons.

And of course, switching the time slot didnt help either. They thought they could go up against Archie Bunker and win. They were wrong.

What gets me is that the show was not only a smash hit out the gate, but found it's way creatively relatively quickly.

The show was balanced in terms of younger and older cast members and most importantly, they had chemistry together and it WORKED.

To gut the older cast members in favor of mediocre replacements who are younger and satisfy a "demographic" better was crazy. Had they left well enough alone, perhaps the show would have continued to be a hit and lasted more than four seasons.

And of course, switching the time slot didnt help either. They thought they could go up against Archie Bunker and win. They were wrong.i have posted this before but i will say it again i dont by gary marshall's story that all of these changes were made behind his back and that he in no way supported them

i meant buy not by

Joanie Loves Chachi was a show that was the highest rated spinoff ever after season 1 and then in season 2......................FAIL

LMAO

i have posted this before but i will say it again i dont by gary marshall's story that all of these changes were made behind his back and that he in no way supported them

By 1979, Garry Marshall had several hit shows on ABC. I'm sure that bought him plenty of clout with the network. Maybe they did try and pressure him, but he probably could have resisted. After all, you don't want to anger one of your top moneymaking producers.

By 1979, Garry Marshall had several hit shows on ABC. I'm sure that bought him plenty of clout with the network. Maybe they did try and pressure him, but he probably could have resisted. After all, you don't want to anger one of your top moneymaking producers.
BINGO!!!

i have posted this before but i will say it again i dont by gary marshall's story that all of these changes were made behind his back and that he in no way supported them


Actually ABC did tell him that they were moving Mork and Mindy to sunday nights and Gary didn't like it because it felt that the show would not do well.

So I don't think he was surprised but he definitely was aware of what was going on

Joanie Loves Chachi was a show that was the highest rated spinoff ever after season 1 and then in season 2......................FAIL

LMAO

The main things JLC had going for it at the outset is that its timeslot was on right after Happy Days, and that its competition was almost all reruns (it was a midseason replacement/spring tryout series). Then, when it returned in the fall of 1982, it was moved to a different night from HD, and all the other shows had new episodes again. So...CLICK.

The main things JLC had going for it at the outset is that its timeslot was on right after Happy Days, and that its competition was almost all reruns (it was a midseason replacement/spring tryout series). Then, when it returned in the fall of 1982, it was moved to a different night from HD, and all the other shows had new episodes again. So...CLICK.


Exactly, being sandwiched in between Happy Days and Three's Company would have gave any show high ratings

It's a bit premature, but Last Man Standing looks to be heading that route w/ changing Kristen's actress (all of the comments that I've read thus far, universally dislike Amanda Fuller in the role when compared to Alexandra Krosney), to Tim Allen seemingly wanting to turn this show into a modern day (heavy-handed) All in the Family (after the first season was for all intents and purposes, Home Improvement if Tim Taylor had all girls for kids), w/ his character being Archie Bunker.


I actually liked the first season and I despise 99% of all modern comedies. The second season changes are all for the worse IMO. No longer a likeable show and after giving it a few episodes to see if I got better, I'm out. The middle, slutty daughter is hot though but they really give her so little screen time.

I actually liked the first season and I despise 99% of all modern comedies. The second season changes are all for the worse IMO. No longer a likeable show and after giving it a few episodes to see if I got better, I'm out. The middle, slutty daughter is hot though but they really give her so little screen time.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/last-man-standings-second-season-was-the-weirdest,95857/

Between Last Man Standing’s first and second seasons, the largely non-distinct sitcom, mostly known for being Tim Allen’s return to television, had a choice to make. Headed for Fridays, the second least-watched night of the week (after Saturdays), the program had to do something to make some noise and hopefully attract viewership. Simply having Allen in the cast wasn’t going to do it any longer. So, as Allen and new showrunner Tim Doyle discussed with the New York Post, the choice was made to try to turn a bland family sitcom into a modern-day Norman Lear comedy, complete with arguing about social issues, Barack Obama, and the nation’s legacy of genocide.

Did it work? Having watched all 18 episodes of the show’s second season, I can’t really say that it made the show better, but it certainly made it weirder. (And in terms of ratings, it allowed the show to keep the lights on on Friday, no mean feat.) Its attempt to put a finger on the country’s pulse made it much more worthy of discussion than when it was just about some angry guy living with too many women, as it was in its first season. It’s like when ’Til Death turned into a strange meta-sitcom in its final season, though somehow even more misguided.

The basic premise of Last Man Standing is the same as Allen’s former sitcom hit, Home Improvement, only his character, Mike Baxter, has three adolescent-and-older daughters, instead of three child sons. The oldest daughter, Kristin, was the promising one who was going to succeed, until she had a child late in high school, and she’s lived in her parents’ house with her son, Boyd, ever since. Middle daughter Mandy is a ditzy fashionplate. Youngest daughter Eve is the one who’s closest to her dad, into things like soccer and hunting. There’s an outdoor-store workplace setting where Mike deals with crotchety boss Ed (meant to be the even more hyper-masculine version of Mike in season one) and dumbass employee Kyle. And in the second season, the show made an attempt to flesh out the neighborhood the Baxters lived in with a handful of recurring characters, including a black couple who become fast friends with the Baxters, and a Latina maid. In addition, the second season added the father of Kristin’s son, Ryan, as a semi-regular, meant to be the Meathead to Mike’s Archie Bunker.

The problem with Last Man Standing’s attempts to go political is exemplified by the first scene of the season première, which remains one of the most uncomfortable scenes of television I’ve ever watched. It’s not even really bad so much as it’s actively discomfiting, doing its best to push buttons in the audience that don’t need to be pushed, as if it thinks what made Lear’s sitcoms a success was the yelling or the mentions of social issues that people sometimes argued about. Mike says Obama was born in Kenya. Kristin and Ryan make fun of Romney for being a robot. It goes on and on and gets more and more squirm-inducing, but in a way that is clearly meant to be a good time. This is the new height of political humor?

The characters on Last Man Standing don’t speak about issues in any sort of nuanced manner, nor do they have terribly deep discussions about them. They mostly repeat buzzwords and shout at each other a lot. The show wanted to make Mike into a conservative hero, but it didn’t bother giving him a consistent worldview. He’s just somebody who spouts Fox News talking points a lot, and while that may be somewhat true to life—in that most modern political arguments between left and right tend to boil down to talking points gleaned from elsewhere—it doesn’t make the experience of watching people shout pithy, empty phrases at each other any more interesting or involving. What’s more, Mike’s main liberal competition—Ryan and, occasionally, Kristin—tend to speak as if they came up with their own political positions from reading the list of tags at the bottom of posts on a left-wing blog.

Again, this is true to life. Few political arguments—particularly those among family—have the level of nuance one might expect from, say, a mythical boxing match between Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman. And, thinking back on All In The Family, Archie and Mike Stivic’s arguments on that show rarely had much nuance to them, either; the series gained much of its power from moments when it could step outside of their limited points-of-view and depict the world as it actually was. What made All In The Family’s political arguments work—what made the vast majority of all of Lear’s series featuring such arguments work—were the character stakes. The idea that Archie and Mike would love or even respect each other at the end of one of those knockdown shouting matches wasn’t taken for granted. They really might end up pushing each other too far, and did on occasion. The relationship, which grew to a kind of grudging respect and finally love, was one of the best developed in television history.

It’s unfair to hold a relationship that’s only existed for 18 episodes of television to that sort of standard, but the central problem with Last Man Standing’s political arguments is that the show A) never gives viewers a reason to care whether Mike and Ryan respect each other at the end of the day (after all, Ryan’s not even a series regular), and B) takes it for granted that the two will respect, and maybe even love, each other. Ryan abandoned the mother of his child and said child for three years and has returned, trying to right his wrongs. The Baxters have every right to be suspicious of him, and it would be easy enough to turn Mike and Ryan’s political arguments into arguments about something more fundamental in their relationship: what Mike perceives as Ryan’s utter inability to help out Kristin when the chips were down. That’s interesting. That’s drama. But Last Man Standing runs away from it at every occasion.

The series has the right idea in trying to ground the political in the personal. For 99 percent of us, politics is personal. Think, for instance, of the relief you might have felt when Obama won last year, or the despair you might have felt when Romney lost. Those emotions may have been driven by something politically concrete on one level, but they were also driven by a more fundamental, emotional level. No matter how much you may believe in [insert issue here], every election comes down to a choice between something you identify strongly with and something you do not. The two-party system all but guarantees this. When the characters on a Norman Lear political sitcom argue, this is what they’re really arguing about: the defense of the self against something that would encroach upon it. Too often on Last Man Standing, however, the characters just argue about politics to give each other a hard time. There’s little sense of passion, and even when the characters come up against a problem that’s truly insoluble—where there are significant arguments to be made on both sides—the show chickens out and ultimately buries everything under a gloss of, “Well, at least we all still love each other!” Take, for instance, the episode “Mother Fracking.”

Mike’s wife Vanessa (the great Nancy Travis, given sadly little to do) is a geologist, and part of her work involves using the process known as fracking to gather natural gas. Eve’s terrified of the impact this might have on the planet, so she stages a one-girl protest. Vanessa rightly points out that the best current method of finding energy comes from fossil fuels. The choice is presented along admirably stark lines: Enjoy the modern comforts that in many cases keep us alive, or probably **** up the planet irreparably. There’s a real opportunity here to strain a relationship between mother and daughter, one viewers actually do care about. Instead, Mike tells Eve that her mother does her best, and maybe Eve shouldn’t give Vanessa a hard time, since she really loves her little girl. And… that’s about it.

This question of making giant political issues into smaller, more personal ones runs throughout the season (though toward the season’s end, it becomes less about that and more about interpersonal relationships), and it’s sometimes, frankly, embarrassing. There’s a whole episode that clumsily creates the impression it wants to make a one-to-one comparison between the genocide of American Indians and Ryan leaving after Boyd was born. (Ryan doesn’t appreciate Ed promoting Outdoor Man with a Western-themed stage show—that arrives out of nowhere, it must be said—which features rampaging Indians. Later, when Ryan tries to say that it doesn’t matter what he did in the past in regards to Boyd, Mike accuses him of turning the tables and trying to sweep his own history under the rug. It’s… awkward.) There’s also an episode, talked about in the Post article above, where Eve gets in trouble for bullying at school, which means well but also inadvertently seems to suggest that kids should be able to use as many anti-gay slurs as they want. Because the show is so intent on not having a definitive political point of view, it comes off as clumsy more often than not. It also forces the characters to behave in ways no human being ever would, as in one episode when Vanessa wonders if she received a promotion because she is good looking, then actually goes and asks her boss that very question. Who would do this?

There are stabs at character complexity here and there. Ryan is liberal to a fault but also subject to his own unexamined prejudices, particularly when it comes to how he, deep down, believes the mother of his child should submit to his authority. And Eve’s a gun-toting wannabe Marine who’s also really concerned about the potential destruction of the planet, and recoils in horror at the Wild West show when she finds out about the plight of the Indians. I’d feel more strongly supportive of these stabs at complexity, however, if the series didn’t leave the impression that it simply forced the characters into whatever straitjacket it needed them to be in for that particular episode. Eve will be a budding hippie in one episode, a budding military member in the next, and never the twain shall meet. Considering the show does take stabs at consistency of setting and story serialization, it’s just a little strange, as if Last Man Standing understands that people are complex but wants to present all of its characters as different archetypes in different episodes, lest they get too complex.

That Last Man Standing doesn’t really work is all the more disappointing because it comes close enough to suggest a show worth watching. Even if the show’s first season was more consistent across the board, it was much less interesting than the second, which was fitfully fascinating, as in an episode when Kristin learns Mandy is infatuated with Kyle, whom Kristin earlier dated, and takes this occasion to reignite her relationship with Ryan. It’s a wonderfully ambiguous moment, where Kristin’s motivations are surprisingly nuanced—until the next episode, when she and Ryan are just happy together again. In its second season, it was incredibly evident that Last Man Standing had seen some of the best shows in TV history and was trying to ape them, but had mostly just captured the surface of them.

You want to know what shows this season have experienced second-season downfalls? Smash and Up All Night.

A summary of UAN's second season downfall:
* Ratings were really, really poor.
* Tried to convert from single-camera to multi-camera.
* Departure of show's creator and showrunner.
* Conversion plan fell apart when star Christina Applegate left.
* Other stars (Maya Rudolph and Will Arnett) have moved on.
* That's how it winds up "automatically cancelled".

Smash's ratings have declined from its first season also, and coupled with the fact that it is expensive to produce, and a move to Saturday nights, it will end up fired in May, and its stars put on the unemployment line.

The ratings are ok but Revenge is having a terrible second season, quality-wise. It was one of my favorite new shows last year and I've given up on it, too many extra characters and a real lack of focus. Networks need to consider making shows like this miniseries with a true beginning and end. I worry about the same fate for one of my favorite new ones this year, The Following.

You want to know what shows this season have experienced second-season downfalls? Smash and Up All Night.

A summary of UAN's second season downfall:
* Ratings were really, really poor.
* Tried to convert from single-camera to multi-camera.
* Departure of show's creator and showrunner.
* Conversion plan fell apart when star Christina Applegate left.
* Other stars (Maya Rudolph and Will Arnett) have moved on.
* That's how it winds up "automatically cancelled".

Smash's ratings have declined from its first season also, and coupled with the fact that it is expensive to produce, and a move to Saturday nights, it will end up fired in May, and its stars put on the unemployment line.
Up All Night was hardly a great show in its first season, but yeah any initial charm the show had was pretty much gone in Season 2. Too much network interference was its downfall from the very beginning.

Looking through some old threads, I was reminded that I several years back, started a similar discussion about "second season TV show downfalls":
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=239948

Buck Rogers Holy Shark Jump Batman!

http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2007/09/worst-series-retool-ever.html

But I think another retool from the same era may be even worse: Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. You'll recall that the first season of this Glen Larson production was the cheesiest thing ever: bad '70s fashions in the future, an annoying robot sidekick (voiced by Mel Blanc, who didn't even bother to make up an actual voice for the character; that was basically just his real voice), and lots of space T&A. But it combined everything people liked in the late '70s and early '80s: cornball humor, action, robots, sci-fi, and jiggle TV. The abbreviated second season had a serious and depressing setting, serious and depressing plots, a serious and depressing supporting cast, and few female guest stars. I'm not saying Buck Rogers was a good show in its first season, though it was better than the second. What I'm saying is that I don't understand the logic: how did anyone think the show would get more popular if they included less humor, action and sex appeal? It would be like retooling Star Trek to make Kirk suicidal and celibate, and replacing every member of the crew with that alien from the Filmation cartoon.

I thought the American Version of Men Behaving Badly was a decent show but, Ron Eldard and Justine Bateman left after the first season and were replaced by Ken Marino and Jenica Bergere the show tanked from there.

Ironically, I believe that the British version got considerably better in most peoples' eyes when they replaced some cast members.

http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2007/09/retoolers.html

“The Clown Show has been put on hiatus for retooling:” 20 cases of mutant TV (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-clown-show-has-been-put-on-hiatus-for-retoolin,25099/)

Since The Daily Show was mentioned:
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/428996

They're a product of different eras. The Craig Kilborn/early Stewart days were a send-up of 'A Current Affair' special interest shows that were prominent in the mid/late-90s. The turning point was the 2000 election when more of those shows, along with the rise of the 24-hour news cycle, began to skew more political. I feel the change was for the better as the writing got sharper and, along with 'The Colbert Report' being a show that could only be birthed out of the Bush era of news media coverage, has evolved into an effective comedy time capsule of each era.

They still weave pop culture in where it works, but for the most part it's a smarter more fulfilling show.

I remember those early Daily Shows. Back in college when me and my friends would go out, we'd come back, watch Late Night with Conan O'Brien and then switch over to watch the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn. The first time we tuned in and saw John Stewart we were all like "who's this idiot? He's not as funny as Kilborn". That quickly changed.

Yeah, those early shows were more a satire on news programs in general and not the political news coverage that dominates networks like CNN and Fox News now. It was more common for them to parody more human interest stories or pop culture stuff the political debates. I remember some of their early segments like "Pudding Time" or "The Top 5 Earning Movies of the Week in Lira".

http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/428996?page=2

Kilborn fit the time. He was a detached cool at a superficial irony, which works perfectly when the biggest news story in the country circles around whether or not the President lied about getting a b***job. The Stewart years became a much different show, but I don't fault the Kilborn years for being what they were.

Stewart does have a more "on the fly" style then Kilborn did. Basically Kilborn went out there, did his bit, if it didn't work he shrugged his shoulder and moved onto the next one. If Stewart is seeing a bits not working, he'll improv something or make a face or at least just hang a lantern on the fact that it wasn't working. Anything to try to get some reaction out of the crowd.

Although considering the problems the writers and producers had with Kilborn at times I doubt they would've appreciated him improving anyways.

Cable news gives the Daily Show too much material. I think that with Killborn it was more so an Inside Edition spoof. They would just make fun of "Soft" news pieces and stupidity of the stuff inside edition would cover as "News".

Jon Stewart is more so satire about what is going on in the world. I do agree that he should do more stuff with non-political stories as he is funny when he does that kind of stuff.

Kilborn's style was less about throwing red meat to the 'congregation', as it were. It was just kind of goofy. Stewart's seems more about re-affirming dislike for those you disagree with.

And I think I've had enough of that.

Count me in as someone who likes Jon Stewart, a lot more than Kilborn.

Really without Stewart and the shift to more politics, I don't know if it would still be around. What started the shift and started The Daily Show's ascension into being as big as it is, was Indecision 2000. That coverage took them to a whole other level.

Without the shift we probably would have never gotten Gitmo, Puppet Michael Steele, and Jason Jones being lost in Washington D.C.

Another old thread that I just uncovered elsewhere.

Great TV Shows That Hit the Wall in Season 2:
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/202057/great-shows-hit-wall-season

In other words, what are some shows (in your humble opinion) that had a GREAT first season and unfortunately fell apart (call it "The Sophomore Jinx") when they came back?

I too think that some shows should be produced in a mini series sort of way. Revenge looks cool, and I wanted to watch, but I've tried to get into at least a dozen shows similar over the years and they have been cancelled.

Make 10 episodes a season, like the Premium channels, and let us know if you'll return for another season or not.

"Revenge". Totally different show from the get-go in season 2. They lost me after about 4 episodes this season. I loved the show last year.

I can't believe no one's mentioned Mork & Mindy. That show is the EPITOME of a second season downfall.

Speaking of Mork & Mindy:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-214497.html

Add the jeffersons to that list

Jeffersons was #4 in season 1 and then in season 2 it fell to #21

Add the jeffersons to that list

Jeffersons was #4 in season 1 and then in season 2 it fell to #21

I'm kind of referring more towards quality than simply from a ratings perspective.

“The Clown Show has been put on hiatus for retooling:” 20 cases of mutant TV (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-clown-show-has-been-put-on-hiatus-for-retoolin,25099/)

Since The Daily Show was mentioned:
http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/428996





http://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/428996?page=2

Anyone miss the "old" Daily Show? (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/entertainment-board/304130-anyone-miss-old-daily-show.html)

Harry's Law!! Great first season, then 2nd season retooled and a different night killed this great show. :shakes fist at NBC::mad:

Harry's Law!! Great first season, then 2nd season retooled and a different night killed this great show. :shakes fist at NBC::mad:i agree

http://zvbxrpl.blogspot.com/2007/09/retoolers.html

http://www.shawconnect.ca/TV/Galleries/Second_season_retools.aspx#!1368042218203_08YQ7P5cJt0YD_Wonder-Woman-%281975_79%29

There is no blueprint for TV success. So most series undergo a lot of retooling on their way to getting produced. Cast members are nixed. Other characters are added. Even the tone, setting and title can be transformed. Most times, TV retooling happens before a show ever sees the light of day. But there are plenty of examples of fledgling shows that went under the knife after their first season - only to return much different. Though not necessarily better: