It's Not HBO, It's Just TV

[Mr. Television]

From The Chicago Tribune


Originally posted: June 2, 2006
Is it HBO, or just TV?
It’s hard to imagine HBO not doing things right, but that era may be upon us.

Back in 1998 and 1999, the pay-cable network debuted “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos,” respectively, and used those upscale destination shows to build an impressive, 29-million strong subscription base and polish its image as the place for quality programming for grown-ups.

But now, as “The Sopranos” era comes to a close, the network looks vulnerable. By killing off “Deadwood,” which debuts its third season June 11 and won’t return after that, HBO has publicly shot itself in the foot. For this buzz-dependent network, that’s a real rarity.

HBO has a little time to play with, but not much. “The Sopranos” ends its run after a brief outing at the start of 2007, but frankly, based on what we’ve seen of the show’s sixth season, it looks as though it’s already run out of steam (more on that here) -- and the network has let it. The meandering, even dull nature of this season of “The Sopranos” is disappointing, but perhaps telling as well.

Does HBO’s signature show losing its way creatively signal bigger problems at the network? Frankly, the creative decline of “The Sopranos” (not to mention the quality nose dive of “Six Feet Under” before it died) is downright alarming, viewed in the context of other recent moves by HBO.

“Big Love” is watchable and its cast is first-rate, but it’s not, in my opinion, a must-see program -- and how much more mileage can be wrung from the idea of polygamy’s intersection with “family values”? Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong and it is a concept with staying power. Still, is a show about one man and his multiple wives the program that’s going to draw in the female viewers who were addicted to the ultimate thinking-woman’s romantic comedy, “Sex and the City”?

“Rome” is terrific, but it’s so expensive that one wonders how long the network will keep it going. “Entourage” has the buzz that HBO covets so much and it’s a delightfully diverting treat, but it’s no “Sopranos” and it will no doubt run its course in another two or three seasons.

Most shocking of all is the network’s decision to let the contracts of its “Deadwood” actors lapse, which effectively means that the show is not coming back after its third-season finale. Not coming back. Ever. Let that stunning fact sink into your brain.

It’s like Admiral Nelson poking a hole in his own ship just before the battle of Trafalgar.

Allowing “Deadwood” to wither, in favor of an as-yet-unseen new surfing series from “Deadwood’s” creator, David Milch, is a disastrous decision, and it sends a worrying signal at a crucial time for HBO.

Not only will the show go into 2007 without that critically acclaimed, buzz-worthy program in its arsenal, but one of the most original, poetic and well-acted shows on TV will die a premature, entirely unwarranted death. I’ve seen the first few episodes of the show’s third season, and the death of “Deadwood” is truly a dagger in the heart of any fan of quality drama.

Apparently, despite some earlier misgivings, Milch himself is now at peace with the decision to end “Deadwood,” according to a statement he released Thursday. In that case, both Milch and HBO are wrong.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to shoot a fourth season of “Deadwood,” allowing an orderly transition during the crucial year of “The Sopranos” exit, then allow Milch to turn his attention to a new show? True, “Deadwood” is expensive to make, but it no doubt has made and will continue to make plenty of money on DVD and other platforms.

Most important, the Shakespearean “Deadwood” is one of the most distinctive, original programs on television, and the cast is almost embarrassingly crammed full of Emmy-deserving actors. It, along with “The Shield” and “Battlestar Galactica,” is setting the standard for the kind of cinematic quality that is possible in the increasingly crowded world of original, scripted television.

Not only is HBO shooting itself in the foot by letting “Deadwood” go, it’s stirring up fan discontent (via several pro-“Deadwood” and anti-HBO Web sites) and creating bad buzz as the network turns its attention to its post-“Sopranos” phase. And despite Milch’s statement, the “Deadwood” controversy shows no sign of going away soon. That’s not good for a network that’s dependent on good press and positive word-of-mouth.

Providing continuity for HBO subscribers in that critical year, 2007, makes sense. Once “The Sopranos” exits, how many subscribers will stick around without “Deadwood” to look forward to? Again, perhaps I’m wrong about that, and, as HBO executives always say, people sign up for HBO for a multitude of viewing options - movies, sports, original programming and what have you. And maybe the talk of “Deadwood” fans canceling the pay-cable service after the show’s finale airs is that -- just talk. But is that the kind of talk HBO wants right now?

Letting “The Sopranos” die a bloated, overly long death - that’s frankly understandable, given what a game-changer the drama has been for the network. What network wouldn’t want to cling to Tony and his crew as long as possible?

But HBO is not just letting “The Sopranos” slide and letting “Deadwood” die - the fact is, in the last year or two, the network has not, aside from “Rome,” given us anything of similar stature to tune in to.

Looking at HBO’s slate for 2007, after “The Sopranos” ends, doesn’t inspire much hope, unless the network pulls another inspiring, original series out of its hat in the next year. The fact is, at the moment, HBO isn’t acting like the swaggering channel that has long gone by the slogan “It’s not TV, it’s HBO.”

If things don’t change, if HBO doesn’t unveil another sensational series, this time next year, what HBO will mostly have is ... just TV