MovieChat Forums > Peter Gunn (1958) Discussion > Why was Peter Gunn canceled?

Why was Peter Gunn canceled?


Wondering why Peter Gunn was canceled? Anyone have the backstory? Surely ratings were still good in 1961 considering it was then on ABC. "Mother" had died in 1960 but that shouldn't have had a big impact.

reply

A check of the ratings shows that "Gunn" was #29 in the ratings, but it was in a horrible Monday night timeslot just before the news for one.
That wasn't bad for an ABC show; however, ABC was still in "secondary" status in many markets, similar to the way UPN and the WB would occasionally "share" the same station in a market in the 1990s. For instance, in Louisville, KY, the CBS affiliate would also run some ABC shows. This would suggest that many Peter Gunn fans weren't able to follow the show from NBC to ABC for that last season. That was probably what killed the show.

reply

How come PG left NBC?

reply

According to Ric Meyers' book Murder on the Air, Blake Edwards decided to cancel Peter Gunn because he had too many other things on his plate, like movies.

reply

Milton Berle used to joke that the way to end the War in Vietnam would be to put it on ABC because it was sure to be cancelled.

reply

That was a good joke, but in fact ABC was a rising network throughout the late 50s-early 60s. Peter Gunn, with support from Blake Edwards, might have made it through a fourth season, maybe even a fifth, if well "slotted" on ABC.

It needed a good time slot. ABC had lots of popular detective shows, most quite different from PG, most of them from Warners, so PG wouldn't have been out of place on what was then called the "third network".

ABC was moving up, albeit slowly, but it was. They had The Untouchables, Naked City and a bit later, Ben Casey. The network had had some success with offbeat fare (One Step Beyond) and, later on, The Outer Limits.

reply

Well ABC did tap into Warner Bros. in the late 50s. They were open so they had room on the schedule for the cookie cutter shows. The more established networks had contractual relationships which went back to radio. They were also available for Desilu's new shows.They were also open to shows moving from the other networks. The thing is that they tended to die there. It was up an coming, you're right. Its origin was as NBC Blue, a second network that had to be spun off. But as has been pointed out, it lacked affiliates that the other networks had. Their strongest shows, like Ozzie and Harriet and Lawrence Welk, were usual early evening shows that could be distributed almost like syndicated shows. This is why they were open to what was called action and adventure. Watched a bunch of Desilu Untouchables lately and there were a lot of shoot outs and a high body count. ABC had to try harder.

reply

Good points, and you surely know your stuff broadcast-wise. Welk and Ozzie &Harriet enjoyed very long runs, were among the handful lf truly long running (as in over a decade) shows that ran on ABC prime time. I think The Wide World Of Sports was ABC also. I saw a lot of those Untouchables, too, recently, and its violence (among other things) made it highly controversial in its day, but then Peter Gunn had its share of shoot 'em ups and fisticuffs, featured a lot of weird or giant villains for Pete to tangle with.

ABC also had the advantage (and sometimes mixed lessing) of getting those series that the Big Two passed on, wouldn't pick up. It provided a safe haven for those strange horror and sci-fi comedies so popular in the middle to late 60s (the Addams and Munster shows, Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeannie). For a few years there they seemed to have a corner on World War II era dramatic and action series like Combat! and 12 O'Clock High. Then came the "experimental" prime time soap, Peyton Place, and they were having some very good years.

What ABC lacked, NBC had an abundance of in the OTR era, CBS picked up on in the early television era, was star personalities. It was those star names that kept NBC ahead of the pack in the old days on radio, while on the small screen CBS triimphed with Lucy, Godfrey, Andy, Ed Sullivan, Garry Moore and, later on, Carol Burnett. If a star wasn't all that well known, they could make him, de novo, as it were, a household name, as happened with Griffith and Dick Van Dyke. ABC had Walt Disney for his first five years as host of the popular Disneyland before he moved to NBC; and they had Dick Clark's American Bandstand for the teens. Nor did ABC make the mistake of DuMont, which tended to move sideways, caught in a pioneering network rut, unable to break free from it. ABC evolved, and bad become almost a different network by 1965 from what it had been ten years earlier. Still third place, but catching up fast.

reply

Ah, poor DuMont. They had Captain Video. They started Your Show of Shows with Sid Caesar et.al and when they jumped to NBC replaced him with Jackie Gleason, who went to CBS. Wonderama. So many pioneering shows and it was all over in 10 years.

reply

Apparently founder Allen DuMont did not have a good eye for talent, was a techie, and a brilliant one, a good businessman for what he did prior to going into television broadcasting; after that, not so good. Weren't most of DuMon's shows broadcast from New York? I doubt they had much in the way of west coast facilities, which limited them to early live television. Unlike DuMont's radio "equivalent", Mutual, the baby network never moved on, gained much in the way of affiliates, which made their producing a national hit of major proportions a near impossibility. Captain Video was, I believe, their biggest hit, but they produced a few others as well. I think Fulton Sheen was with DuMont for his first two or three seasons, and he was huge, however his "audiences" was mostly in major cities and was, I suspect, better known than he was watched in those early days.

Didn't DuMont do some negotiating with Walt Disney for the still in the planning stages Disneyland? What ended it was from what I've read was ABC's access to large amounts of capital that made their offer the one Disney couldn't refuse. Walt needed seed money for his new theme park, and DuMont either couldn't or wouldn't put up the cash. It helped that ABC was an NBC spinoff, had executives who knew a thing or two about broadcasting. DuMont needed to hire top talent. Television broadcasting was much more difficult than the radio kind. A hit radio show could be broadcast from a phone booth. The visual aspect of television made studios, and fairly large ones, a necessity. In its very early years even the major networks produced their shows on the cheap, with many if not most broadcast live from New York.

In the end it came down to the Big Three for television. It sort of had to go that way, though for its first decade syndicated shows of the kind Fred Ziv and others like him produced gave the big guys a (minor league) run for their money, they didn't make a serious dent in network broadcasting, were mostly a diversion. The growth of third rated ABC probably contributed to the demise of syndicated shows, as you alluded to in your post. For me the larger issue is why Mutual remained an exclusively radio network. DuMont was a one off put together by indie outsiders, but Mutual was a major player in radio, had, at its peak, more affiliates than the Big Two put together! They focused more on smaller affiliates, smaller cities and towns, thus they had more stations lined up, though numbers can be deceptive. Mutual wasn't just news back then,--they were entertainment oriented as well--and they had some major hits.

reply

Actually, 'I Dream of Jeannie' was on NBC and 'The Munsters' was on CBS.

reply

Thanks for the correction. Those were intuitive guesses, as both seemed more like ABC fare, but I guess the networks were copycatting their programs by then. The Big Valley was ABC, felt like one those more prestigious NBC westerns (Wagon Train, Bonanza, The Virginian).

reply