What's in a name? Could "Arrested Development" have somehow stunted that show's growth?
There's a psychology to titles, and that one does not trip lightly off the tongue. But that's not enough to explain why a comedy that seemingly offered everything a discerning viewer could ever want - originality, eccentricity, clever inside jokes and pop-culture references, vivid characters, outstanding writing, first-rate acting, even a multi-part guest appearance by Charlize Theron _ forever found itself in the nether regions of the Nielsen list.
The Bluth clan also had almost all the elements that would ensure a TV family longevity - rave reviews, great pedigree, occasional big promotional pushes, even a great big Emmy as validation. So, why couldn't it find enough of an audience?
This Friday night, the Fox network will air four "Arrested Development" episodes that may well be the last hurrah for Mitch Hurwitz' critically acclaimed Bluth-centric comedy. Officially, Fox is calling the two-hour block a "mini-marathon third season finale," but the Bluths are unlikely to be seen ever again on Fox - or network television.
The good news is that last month, ABC and Showtime expressed interest in picking up "Arrested," and Showtime seems especially keen on making a deal.
At the recent television critics press tour, Showtime Entertainment President Robert Greenblatt said his network was in talks with Twentieth Television about bringing "Arrested" to Showtime.
"I've loved it since it first appeared," Greenblatt said. "About a year ago at a (Hollywood Radio and Television Society) luncheon, they asked me ... if I could take one show from another network, what would it be? My answer was `Arrested Development.' I always thought it was probably a better fit on a cable network than on a broadcast network."
He's probably right. HBO comedies like "The Larry Sanders Show" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm" couldn't have survived on network TV. Success is measured differently on pay cable.
"If only a small fraction of the loyal audience that's on Fox came to Showtime, it would be one of our highest-rated shows," Greenblatt said, adding, "I think the show is only worth continuing if Mitch Hurwitz was at the helm running it. I think he's the genius behind it. And he hasn't yet come to that decision to continue the show."
Even if a Showtime deal does come to fruition, the lavishly lauded comedy will no longer have access to a mass audience.
Why was mainstream success so elusive?
For one, "Arrested Development" has serialized plot lines, which can deter viewers, and it's a single-camera comedy _ shot without a studio audience or laugh-track. That format works well for HBO but has a spotty track record on network TV.
This season, NBC's "My Name Is Earl" instantly clicked, and "The Office" has started to pick up steam _ enough for the network to pair it with "Earl" as part of a new "Must-See TV" Thursday comedy strategy. But "Scrubs," for all its great reviews, has never been a huge hit for NBC.
Though Fox's "Malcolm in the Middle" caught on for a while, critical darling "Action" (1999-2000) was a ratings failure. ABC had a similar experience with "The Job."
Apparently, for all their complaints about stale sitcoms and annoying laugh tracks, viewers may be more attached to the old format than they let on.
