Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Lessons from LOST to ONCE UPON A TIME: Have Television Writers...(SPOILERS)

I am going to write more on this later, but this is a fantastic article that I completely agree with. While I think it's important for writers to keep viewers on their toes, it is an entirely different matter when they decide to ignore the pitched show premise and jump the shark. After getting this far through the first season of both Grimm and Once Upon a Time I will have to revise my earlier opinions of them. Grimm has turned out to be by far a better show.

Sent to you by eye-shuh via Google Reader:

via the TV addict by Tiffany Vogt on 12/14/11

In the after-math of LOST, an interesting trend has begun to emerge in television viewing patterns:  viewers are now gun-shy of investing in serialized television.  Viewers are no longer willing to invest their time and energy into a show that may take them some place they do not want to go.

For LOST not only dared to kill off its principal characters, it ultimately killed off 9 of its 13 principal characters: Boone, Shannon, Charlie, Jack, John Locke, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Michael – leaving Kate, Sawyer, Hurley and Claire ambiguously alive, and who were revealed to be dead in the final episode. It also killed off a majority of its supporting characters, including Daniel Faraday, Charlotte, Danielle Rousseau, Alex, Juliet, Libby, Ana-Lucia, and Eko.

LOST became the "gold standard" in story-telling because it achieved the remarkable feat of luring in nearly 24 million viewers and ran 6 successful seasons, winning numerous awards along the way.  But, in the end, there was a significant amount of "viewer fatigue."  Pulling in only 8 million viewers by its final episode, LOST is also a great example in how to disenfranchise an audience.

LOST secured its initial amazing viewership numbers because it offered an array of fascinating characters, so much so that viewers could not wait to learn more about each of them.  The breadcrumbs LOST offered were eagerly snatched-up and analyzed and it become part the cultural zeitgeist and popculture.

But it also became a television teaching-tool; it taught viewers that steadfast devotion is not necessarily rewarded in the end.  LOST broke too many hearts, upset its core fan-base and became a "shell" of its former self by the end.  The fact that it ended with the reveal that a large number of its characters were living in a version of purgatory awaiting their chance to "move on" as their fellow comrades joined them one-by-one in the after-life was thoroughly discouraging.

LOST could have been a show that was about its characters over-coming significant hardship and obstacles to achieve a rescue, fixing a broken timeline or even finding their place in the world; instead it was a show that offered only despair, hopelessness and death.  Fans who tuned out early, were gleeful that they had not wasted their time on a show that took them on such a futile journey.  Fans that stuck with the show to the bitter-end, were divided on how to feel about it.  Some loved it; some hated it.  It was a 6-year journey that left a distasteful feeling behind.

In the television seasons that followed the end of LOST, several TV shows attempted to imitate its successful formula – each failing more spectacularly than the next.  Fingers were pointed at the pale imitations citing casting, pacing, directing and a whole host of other things that lead to their downfall.  But the one thing they all shared in common was huge initial ratings, followed by steep decline as viewership steadily eroded.  The shows were getting the LOST formula right, but viewers were not sticking around.  Why?  It was most likely because viewers saw that the shows were not heading in a direction they wanted to go.

While some may be quick to point out that shows like MAD MEN, JUSTIFIED and THE WALKING DEAD are all succeeding with serialized television shows, those shows pull in significantly lower numbers of viewers than most broadcast television shows.  A show that has the luxury of being off-network (AMC, FX, CW) can afford to pull in lower numbers of viewers.  They are not competing for mass viewership, only the number of viewers to make them economically viable on their network.  Shows competing on ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX must pull in much higher numbers of viewers to be viable.  Currently FOX's TERRA NOVA, which pulls in an average of 7 million viewers, is considered "on the bubble" because that number of viewers for a regular broadcast network is considered low.  Similarly, ABC's PAN AM is only attracting 4.6 million viewers is considered "unofficially canceled."  (In contrast, MAD MEN pulled in 2.9 million viewers last season, JUSTIFIED pulled in 3.9 million viewers, and THE WALKING DEAD averages 6 million viewers.) But for broadcast networks, viewership under 6 million is a death-knell.

So when you look at the viewership erosion of this season's critically-lauded and fan-favorite ONCE UPON A TIME, a startling trend emerges.  With only seven episodes having aired to date, ratings dropped from 12.8 million viewers to 8.9 million in less than 2 months.  It has been a steady progression as shown:

Episode 1 – 12.8 million ("Pilot")
Episode 2 – 11.6 million ("The Thing You Love The Most")
Episode 3 – 11.3 million ("Snow Falls")
Episode 4 – 11.3 million ("The Price of Gold")
Episode 5 – 10.66 million ("That Still Small Voice")
Episode 6 – 9.6 million ("The Shepherd")
Episode 7 – 8.9 million ("The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter")

The loss of 4 million viewers is significant.  For any show, that kind of loss leads one to wonder: what is going on?  Viewers are not simply disappearing; they are running away as fast as they can.  As I discussed in my article "ONCE UPON A TIME Redux: Why Do TV Shows Have To Break Our Hearts?", viewers tune-out when they are unhappy or disillusioned.  ONCE UPON A TIME promised the return of "happy endings" – yet dared to kill off a beloved character within its first 7 episodes.  Not even LOST was so audacious; it dared not kill Boone until episode 20 in its first season.

Two recent serialized TV shows that attempted to follow in LOST's footsteps were FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT.  FLASHFORWARD debuted to 12.5 million viewers, falling to 8.5 million by episode 7 (a loss of 4 million viewers), and finally ended its first season with only 4.9 million viewers.  The following year THE EVENT debuted to 10.8 million viewers, dropping to 5.4 million viewers by its 7th episode (a loss of 5.4 million viewers), and ended its first season with only 4.9 million viewers — and both FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT were canceled after their first seasons. As any television programmer or advertiser will tell you, the numbers do not lie.  With those kinds of viewership drops, a television show is simply not economically viable.

So the noticeable decline of ratings for ONCE UPON A TIME is something to be worried about.  It is very hard for a TV show to reverse a downwards spiral in ratings.  Most executives and showrunners are looking for a plateau point – when ratings level off.  That gives them an idea of what their true audience base is and whether the show stands a chance of making it.

The fact that ONCE UPON A TIME has been created by former LOST writers and promoted as being a LOST-like type of show leads one to wonder if it will make the same mistakes that LOST did.  LOST had the gall to kill off its principal characters and, if ONCE UPON A TIME's most recent episode is any indication, it is following the same formula.

Which leads me back to my question: are television writers being given too much creative license?  When a network greenlights a TV show, they are investing nearly $50 million in a show.  A pilot can cost up to $10 million to make, and each subsequent episode runs about $2 million, not including advertising.  That $50 million investment for a show's first season is something to be protective of.  Thus network executives assess and analyze very carefully whether their investment is garnering the anticipated return.  Television is about profits, after all.  So while the pedigree behind ONCE UPON A TIME is stellar, the creative license invoked is testing whether or not the product is truly viable.

Was it smart for ONCE UPON A TIME to kill off a principal character in episode 7?  Particularly since fans were already showing signs of restlessness and dissatisfaction with the direction the show was heading.  The show had promised that Emma Swan's return would break the curse and return the "happy endings."  Yet within 6 episodes, viewers had quickly figured out that "happy endings" were not being delivered and they were tuning out; and by episode 7, a beloved character had been killed off.   With ONCE UPON A TIME off the air for three weeks, it begs the question of whether fans will want to come back now that they know that the writers are willing to break their hearts.  After all, who wants a repeat of LOST?  No one wants to stick around if all the characters they fall in love with are killed without regard as to whether the viewers have invested in them and all the stories that they had hoped could be told.

Every writer is quick to state that they need "creative license" to bring their vision to life.  But television is a business.  It is all about seducing viewers and convincing them to tune-in and watch a particular TV show each week.  Driving viewers away is only guaranteeing that a show will be canceled and no stories told at all.

It is time for writers and showrunners to recognize that they must work within the confines of the established world of television – television audiences are looking for something that they feel like being a part of each week.  Shows like NCIS, NCIS: LOS ANGELES, THE MENTALIST and MODERN FAMILY have figured it out.  Viewers want a surrogate family to visit each week.  They want to invest in the characters' lives and share the journey they go on.  Killing characters only reminds viewers that the writers have little value or concern in what the audience wants.  No one wants their "surrogate family" torn apart or their newfound "friends" killed off.  Killing characters rarely wins new viewers and frequently upsets established viewers who will seek out other TV shows to call "home."

Too much creative license can back-fire spectacularly.  A writer may think that a character death is the answer to creating conflict and a storyline.  But beware fickle viewers who do not see things the same way.  Killing our "friends" only pisses us off – and if you are advertising your show, which promises to bring back "happy endings," then you had better deliver.  LOST is best remembered for not answering viewers' questions and killing off its core characters, and no one wants to revisit that sad ending.  Let's take "creative license" and use it more constructively – and to all those executives out there crunching the numbers, pay closer attention to the damage being done by writers/showrunners who are sabotaging their own shows with the liberal use of "creative license."  No one really cares about creativity – we just want a show that we all will tune in and watch — and sometimes "happy endings" are just what we are looking for.
Tiffany Vogt is a contributing writer to The TV Addict. She has a great love for television and firmly believes that entertainment is a world of wondrous adventures that deserves to be shared and explored – she invites you to join her. Please feel free to contact Tiffany at or follow her at on Twitter (@TVWatchtower). Tiffany also writes as a columnist for NiceGirlsTV.

Things you can do from here: