Are we doing underrated or under watched? Because most of these shows are (Archer 8.9 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486217/]) pretty (Rome 9.0 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0384766/]) highly (Firefly 9.2 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/]) rated.
If we are going to just name shows that are less popular than they deserve then there's a ton of them. Community, Justified, the now canceled 30 Rock. They are all highly rated but not nearly popular enough, I blame the plebes with their CSI and their Jersey Shoreses.
For a lesser known show that I thought was canceled way before it's time, I would have to go with
Human Target. It was very well done, and pretty much the only high quality action TV series from a 'major' network. The characters were interesting, the premise hadn't really been done yet(at least not in a way that was good.) I'm really not sure why it never caught on, or maybe it was just too expensive for Fox.
disgruntledgamer said:
Toaster Hunter said:
HBOs Rome. I still can't believe that a show as great as that got cancelled after only two seasons. A shame, they had to squeeze twenty plus years of history into a few episodes.
I thought Rome was pretty popular? Anyways yeah sucked for only having 2 seasons it was 100x better than that Spartacus serious that was obviously written by 13 year olds.
Was it actually 'canceled?' I thought the whole point of it was to tell the story of the downfall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Empire. I figured it was always meant to be a short series.
Mike Richards said:
Shame SyFy is being run by a pack of such phenomenal idiots these days.
True, but for different reasons. They really started going downhill after they changed from the SciFi Channel to Syfy like they think we are retarded and need everything to be cutesy and simplistic.
Mike Richards said:
What kind of business sense does it make to cancel a show that's still making a profit
Pretty much every successful business in existence?
Let's say you have two employees at your fruit stand, one works the stand and the other buys product. You currently sell bananas but you can get oranges for the same price. Bananas net you a profit of 1.15$ for every 1$ spent. Oranges net you 3$ for every 1$ spent. Do you keep selling bananas because they are still profitable? Or do you get oranges instead.
You aren't competing in an empty market, so what happens if your competitor sells oranges, he ends up with a lot more money than you have, and suddenly he is able to hire another employee who brings in bananas. Then because he is making more on the oranges, he sells the bananas for cheap. Suddenly you're out of business, and your competition is welcoming you to laissez faire capitalism.
And now just switch out all the terms for networks. Employees become the cost of running a show, the fruit becomes different shows. Syfy keeps their show afloat and another network picks up whatever slack the Fyfy channel doesn't, then they box them out with a better even higher budget version of whatever show they want. More expensive actors, better director, better script. And soon Syfy is out on it's ass because it tried to have 'good' content rather than interviews with people who think they were raped by aliens. I am convinced the only reason HBO is able to have expensive production good shows at all is because of boobs.