10-18-2018, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2018, 06:00 AM by FaceInTheCrowd.)
Executives don't keep their jobs by making decisions that cost their companies profit. Any argument to the contrary is utter nonsense. The producers, stars and fans of shows that get cancelled often come up with fanciful conspiracy theories about why someone in the executive offices "had it in for them" even though they were "a hit," but the bottom line is always the bottom line: P. R. O. F. I. T. Either a show is not making the network a profit, it's not making the network as much of a profit as they think some other show they have waiting in the wings will or something else is happening because of that show that is costing the company profit (for example, if there's a groundswell of people telling companies that sponsor that show and a bunch of other shows on the network how upset they are that the companies are sponsoring that show and the companies are telling the network they don't want their commercials to run on that show anymore).
Could a network executive with a political agenda kill a show? Probably. By going to the network's board and convincing them that one of the above scenarios is happening. But network executive boards are not populated by bleeding heart liberals manipulating programming to fit their beliefs. It's doubtful whether any of them even have hearts or truly believe in anything...except the almighty dollar.
In the case of your example, "Last Man Standng" originally aired on ABC, but ABC didn't own any part of the production, unlike Grimm which aired on NBC and was produced by NBCU. So the network paid the people who made it a fee to license it for airing and collected advertising revenue, but made nothing off DVDs, merchandising or future streaming on Netflix, Amazon, etc. The "Big Three" networks have been moving away from that arrangement for years, so if the producers of the show wanted higher licensing fees and wanted the network to help fund production as well, it totally makes sense that the network's board decided it wasn't worth the money. Now it airs on the Fox Network. Who owns a piece of its production? 20th Century Fox Television.
FYI, I live in Portland, OR. Before that, in SoCal, where you constantly run into people who are either in "the business," used to be in it or are trying to get into it, and they all love to talk about how things work there. It's actually amazing how irrelevant a show's quality or the love anyone has for it is to its survival.
Could a network executive with a political agenda kill a show? Probably. By going to the network's board and convincing them that one of the above scenarios is happening. But network executive boards are not populated by bleeding heart liberals manipulating programming to fit their beliefs. It's doubtful whether any of them even have hearts or truly believe in anything...except the almighty dollar.
In the case of your example, "Last Man Standng" originally aired on ABC, but ABC didn't own any part of the production, unlike Grimm which aired on NBC and was produced by NBCU. So the network paid the people who made it a fee to license it for airing and collected advertising revenue, but made nothing off DVDs, merchandising or future streaming on Netflix, Amazon, etc. The "Big Three" networks have been moving away from that arrangement for years, so if the producers of the show wanted higher licensing fees and wanted the network to help fund production as well, it totally makes sense that the network's board decided it wasn't worth the money. Now it airs on the Fox Network. Who owns a piece of its production? 20th Century Fox Television.
FYI, I live in Portland, OR. Before that, in SoCal, where you constantly run into people who are either in "the business," used to be in it or are trying to get into it, and they all love to talk about how things work there. It's actually amazing how irrelevant a show's quality or the love anyone has for it is to its survival.