Why it didn't work - Lone Star (2010) Discussion

[–] allisonarf 14 years ago

Cable stations, which invite niche audiences, can get away with anti-hero protagonists. Network shows, which have to appeal to the broadest possible audience, need protagonists that we can identify with and root for. That's why the show didn't last.

reply

[–] darkfire9189 14 years ago

Tony Soprano wasn't a hero in any sense of the word he was the bad guy and yet the main character. Few good guys in that series and yet it lasted 6 seasons and several years

OZ another great show that had few true heros.

Mad Men

Breaking Bad the main character is a meth dealer going from a depressed terminal cancer patient to a psychopath.

Dexter the main character is a serial killer that only murders criminals

reply

[–] physics101 14 years ago

Tony Soprano wasn't a hero in any sense of the word he was the bad guy and yet the main character. Few good guys in that series and yet it lasted 6 seasons and several years

OZ another great show that had few true heros.

Mad Men

Breaking Bad the main character is a meth dealer going from a depressed terminal cancer patient to a psychopath.

Dexter the main character is a serial killer that only murders criminals

All true, BUT

I don't know any gangsters or people in the Mafia. The Sopranos offered a look at a different lifestyle and an updated version of organized crime over something like The Godfather. So the idea interested me and I watched on DVD.

Oz? Don't know any one in prison or what prison life is really like. Never watched the show, but the concept sounds interesting. Haven't watched it. (No cable)

Mad Men? 1960s ad people. Don't know anyone like that. Sounds interesting.

Breaking Bad? Can't come close to acknowledging any familiarity with your description, but sounds interesting.

Dexter? Don't know any serial killers. Sounds like an interesting take. I've seen the first season on DVD and it is interesting.

Lone Star? Two timing liar? Known those from my own life, either personally, through divorces or friends problems. Not interesting. Con men? Known them from my own business life. Not interesting. And this is how the show was promoted.

But that is my take.

reply

[–] LittleMatchGirl 14 years ago

Yeah. As soon as the guy walked into his house of his second life and they showed he had a wife. My immediate thought was "aww.. poor woman. What a perv. I can't watch this." and I turned it off (I usually never catch any promos for new shows, so I didn't know)

I can get behind shows where the main character isn't a good person (eg love Dexter), but I have no desire to sit through a show on a weekly basis where the main character is 24/7/365 betraying people that love him.

--------------------------
Posting and You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2jNjOPdk

reply

[–] jammastrjess 14 years ago

Did you not read what the person above you said at all? You listed all cable shows, which was exactly their point. Now, can you think of a network show with a main character like that?

"Hi, my name is Russell..."

reply

[–] glassrose385 14 years ago

allisonarf's explanation about cable and network audiences is pretty dead on. One of the reasons network TV has declined is because of the overkill of procedural type shows. With so many CSI, Law and Order, NCIS franchise type shows and doctor shows network TV tends to cater to those types of audiences more. I have a cousin who pretty much watches any network procedural type show and so when something like Lone Star or a show that is set outside of the crime, legal or medical world comes out she will not give it a chance. I used to like the L&O franchise years ago but now it's been dragged out. The characters on most network procedurals have been recycled too much and in my opinion most of the people on those shows aren't great actors or actresses. I find it sad that someone like Mariska Hargitay keeps get nominated for Emmys when the character she plays never changes or has storylines that last at three episodes.

Cable channels can handle different and market different types of TV shows well. I think the main character Bob on Lone Star was never portrayed as a good guy but more as the antihero who was starting to get a change of conscience. His personality had a lot to do with his upbringing it would have been interesting to find out more about him and John. The character sort of reminded me of Don Draper from Mad Men. They are the types of characters that aren't angels but at the same time we sort of see why they are the way they are.

reply

[–] physics101 14 years ago

One of the reasons network TV has declined is because of the overkill of procedural type shows. With so many CSI, Law and Order, NCIS franchise type shows and doctor shows network TV tends to cater to those types of audiences more. ...

Cable channels can handle different and market different types of TV shows well. I think the main character Bob ... sort of reminded me of Don Draper from Mad Men. ...

The networks catch a lot of grief for the number of procedurals and reality shows etc. The cable stations are lauded for their more interesting, deeper portrayals in their shows.

I wonder when each of those cable stations will start programming 3 prime time hours 6 days a week like the networks do since the cable stations seem to be so good at the 2 or 3 hours per week they do now.

Any ideas on when that will happen? Perhaps the networks should reduce their programming to one or two new shows per year and somehow manage to get rid of those pesky FCC rules that prohibit people from swearing or men and women walking around nude all of the time.

reply

[–] allisonarf 14 years ago

"I wonder when each of those cable stations will start programming 3 prime time hours 6 days a week like the networks do since the cable stations seem to be so good at the 2 or 3 hours per week they do now."

Don't think so. Cable channels don't have the large budgets that network stations do. That's why they fill their schedules with movies and re-runs of network shows for large chunks of time.

"Any ideas on when that will happen? Perhaps the networks should reduce their programming to one or two new shows per year and somehow manage to get rid of those pesky FCC rules that prohibit people from swearing or men and women walking around nude all of the time."

Doubt that networks will want to reduce their shows. As for as FCC rules, even if they were gone, the advertisers would still have a hold over the networks. Most advertisers don't want their products associated with racy material. That's why stations like HBO and Showtime--which are not ad supported--can be as graphic as they want to be.

You are also forgetting that there have been plenty of successful cable shows without nudity and graphic swearing, like Monk, Leverage, Stargate, Covert Affairs, White Collar, Drop Dead Diva, and Royal Pains. TV shows don't have to necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator to be hits.

reply

[–] physics101 14 years ago

I was being sarcastic. Sorry you missed it.

reply

[–] Wordsmith80 14 years ago

Don't forget about Burn Notice! :) with the exception of Monk, BN has been a bigger hit than any of those other shows you just mentioned. I know, being a stickler lol ;)

As far as why Lone Star failed....while I'm not necessarily against a shady sorta antihero protag, Anybody who lives in Texas knows the plot was preposterous...a Texas Oilman/Conman/Bigomist? Come on!!

It's like they refried parts of Dallas ans strapped on a little Mad Men chic'

If you want to TRY and go for the edgy stuff, fine, but at least come up with a concept that's a little more beliveable.

reply

[–] sutek_x 14 years ago

Um, the second wife was a part of the con in Middleton, except he fell in love with her. And he isn't legally married to her since he is using a false name, not his real identity.

But on one funny note, the scene in the hotel with the woman trying to seduce him and it goes to the scene where you think he slept with her, and then a man opens the bathroom door, priceless. Unfortunately it fell flat when it was the hotel maintenance man fixing the room.

Turning the main character into a gay con artist would have been more intriguing considering a mental breakdown with an identity crisis for the life he lives.

"God's not supposed to be a hack horror writer." - In The Mouth Of Madness

reply

[–] absolutedesignz 14 years ago

That would be friggin GENIUS....but then the show would've been canceled after that scene due to how puritanical a lot of American audiences are.

"Once again, every Christian has always known that God has a Penis." - Navaros

reply

[–] Rics-EQ2 14 years ago

Technically he isn't a two timer ok? He is a conartist.
His first wife he married as a way to con her rich family.
His second wife..he married for no reason other than love!
And he hates his con life..so there's at least remorse for having two wives.

Umm, two women, one man, neither knowing about the other...yeah, that's two-timing, cheating, whatever. Either way, it's pathetic and not very appealing to watch. Especially when the show is trying to portray the man as the "good" guy. Especially when they are trying to play the whole "yeah, but he feels bad about it and he's just caught up in it" card.

He married her for love? Please. You don't/can't "love" somebody while you are with another women, for whatever reason. It's a ridiculous notion, and not something more people care to watch.

I was kinda looking forward to the show, but when I heard he was married to two women (one for a con), I lost all interest. Didn't bother to watch a single episode. And most everybody I know stopped watching it when they found out.

The Ultimate Adventurer's Guide | www.theuag.net

reply

[–] cineastral 14 years ago

I think you're applying the modern age's cultural norm when you stated that some can't love more than one woman. I did know someone (a non-American) who loved two women and took care of both until their old age. Contrast that with the American culture where a man loved a woman (or vice versa) until they got into a nasty divorce. Which kind of love is better?

reply

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

I think you're applying the modern age's cultural norm when you stated that some can't love more than one woman. I did know someone (a non-American) who loved two women and took care of both until their old age. Contrast that with the American culture where a man loved a woman (or vice versa) until they got into a nasty divorce. Which kind of love is better?

I think a very large part of the issue with Bob and his two women is that he's lying to both women. If he were upfront and was openly with the two women, giving them the choice of being in a poly relationship, that would be one thing. But he's not.

It begs the question, how can a person say s/he "loves" another when the relationship is based on a lie? If you have to lie to keep the relationship, then it's probably not worth holding on to - for at least one of the participants.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

reply

[–] bbrown2676 14 years ago

I personally think that the reason it didn't work was because he wasn't ENOUGH of an anti-hero.

I posted this before, but the character needed to be "slicker" so that you could resolve the two sides of his personality better.

This actor was just too much of a nice guy who is doing crappy things whereas if the actor was someone like (as a con-man stereotype) Josh Holloway you could buy him both as a slick con man who might have two wives AND as a guy who is torn between the life he has led and the life he wants, and may in fact, as wrong as it is, really love both women.

He just came across as a guy who might fold at any second and come clean in order to fix things, and that takes away half of the interest of the show.

This show wanted to be too many things, and if they cut it back to even one or two of the premises it had, might have worked.
It could have been a show about a guy with two wives, OR a show about a young man joining a tight Texas Oil family, OR about a con man who wants out, OR about a New executive at an Oil Company, OR about at con man who infiltrates a major company, OR a con man who ends up with ties to a town he screwed, OR a small time con man running a big con in a small town, OR life in a Texas Oil Family, OR, OR.

All it had going for it was a likeable main character...that was probably TOO likeable to be believable.

And Jon Voight

reply

[–] fuzzout987 14 years ago

Yeah I think the reason for the low ratings was that in a recession people don't want to watch a show about a con man ripping off hardworking people of their money and cheating on two women.

reply

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

Yeah I think the reason for the low ratings was that in a recession people don't want to watch a show about a con man ripping off hardworking people of their money and cheating on two women.

Ditto. This was my feeling as well. The people they were ripping off were honest, hardworking people. If he were ripping off the rich, the average viewer could live vicariously and support him (and his father). But the audience identified with the victims. That didn't make the hero likable.

What makes him even more unlikeable is the two wives. He loves both. Is lying to and cheating on both. Again, the audience identifies with the wrong characters.

Sure, a story about a bad guy turning his life around could be good. Watching him try and stay on the wagon, so to speak. But right out of the gate, the guy continues to lie (to the women)and apparently has no plans to stop. He got the wife and money wherever and decides to marry and keep the piece on the side. So he's only going straight, sorta.

So what's there to root for? His getting caught. As they hero, that's not going to happen. What's the point then?

Usually, with anti-heroes, he's doing something the audience would like to do but can't for whatever reason. Unfortunately, this anti-hero was doing stuff most have fallen victim to (being ripped off and being cheated on.) And we just want to see him gone.

And now he is.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

reply

[–] tristanchord85 14 years ago

Everybody here has some interesting theories about why the show didn't work. I agree, an anti-hero on a network would be a hard sell. But since it only lasted two episodes it wasn't even given a chance to build an audience. Only 4 million tuned in to the pilot, so it's not as if a lot of people tuned in, didn't like what they saw, and tuned out. So I think a discussion about what was wrong with the content of the show is irrellavent. The better question is why didn't people tune in in the first place? I would think that FOX didn't promote it enough, and that Dancing with the Stars was just too strong a competition.

reply

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi tristanchord85,

A friend of mine was in New York when the show premiered. She said Lone Star posters were everywhere around Manhattan and also in Boston and that the tv promos played constantly. I think Lone Star was a show that didn't interest too many people. The buzz around it was manufactured by the FOX publicity machine and television critics who liked what they saw. Prior to cancellation, I checked this board and it was dead as were the boards of the principles. It was a quality show but few people seemed to be interested in it.

reply

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

I would think that FOX didn't promote it enough, and that Dancing with the Stars was just too strong a competition.

I'm not sure it wasn't promoted enough. Every time I looked up at the TV, there was a promo for it on. It could be that DWTS is too strong, but the CBS comedies did better than 4 million against it. So there are folks out there NOT watching DWTS.

Maybe Fox just promoted it wrong. As many have mentioned, the character being with 2 women was an issue for some. The promo I saw often was Bob calling his father and saying he was in love. Dad asks, with which one? Bob replies "both".

That might have turned off some from the jump.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

reply

[–] LoganT 14 years ago

Josh Holloway would have been perfect for this role.

reply

[–] CindyLouHaiku 14 years ago

I just don't get a lot of the criticism of this show, given the ratings for

Desperate Housewives
Grey's Anatomy
Brothers & Sisters

What am I forgetting? Network TV is long on cheating and short on consequences.

I liked where the show was going. Here is a guy who has grown up on the run, in a bubble with his dad. Now that he's involved with two women, he's getting a glimpse of the attractions of the straight life. So, he has to be pretty young to think about a big change. If he were older, he'd be too set in his ways. And his optimism is what convinces the marks.

But can he really change? And will his dad let him go? What do the women really want? What do the Thatchers want? Lots of possibilities there.

Also, I think the women have their own complicated agendas. I wish the pilot had hinted at that.

"Facts are theory-laden."-my college Poli Sci professor

reply

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi CindyLouHaiku,

The Good Wife is another show that presents a moral quandry with fidelity. I think there were myriad issues with this series that caused it to be pulled. There was never a buzz about it, in fact, there is much more interest in it now that it was cancelled than when the Fox publicity machine was working full force. I agree with you that the wives were presented too simplistically. The 2nd episode presented a fabulous, manipulative bitch and 3rd episodes was going to introduce Andy McDowell as a con-woman. While I think Lone Star was not right for network tv, a 10 p.m. time-slot might have helped it too.

reply

[–] kigaiyuuto 14 years ago

Unfortunately FOX doesn't air shows at 10pm. Now that I have read some of the comments above. It made sense why the show was dead on arrival.

reply

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi kigaiyuuto,

Yes, you are correct and I should have clarified my post. I know that FOX airs the news at 10 p.m. but other networks don't. I watched season premier of The Good Wife, another very provocative show and realized that prehaps Lone Star would have worked at a 10 pm time slot but on another network.

reply

[–] pt100 14 years ago

Moral ambiguity is the kiss of death. Period.

reply

[–] Tyranthian 14 years ago

Sorry folks, not buying all this so-called prudishness for this show. Where's the prudishness for shows with REALLY awful characters? Try again folks!

reply

[–] pt100 14 years ago

I'm not being prudish. I'm simply pointing out a fact: that American audiences don't tend to like moral ambiguity--or most types of ambiguity, for that matter. That's one reason that "John From Cincinnati" failed: the show was just too coy, and viewers finally gave up in frustration, trying to figure it out.

I'm certainly not alone in this assessment. I just read a review in TV Guide, and it confirms what I'm saying: the problem wasn't the time slot (strong lead-in from "House") or the critical reviews (mostly glowing, or at least positive). As one executive of a rival network put it, "Selling an anti-hero to the broadcast-network audience has always proven difficult. Moral ambiguity generally is not a good thing unless it's for cable."

But in this case, I don't think it would have flown even on cable. "John From Cincinnati" was on HBO, and it still gets good ratings on imdb, but it was gone after only 10 episodes. I don't think cable would have helped "Lone Star" much if at all.

reply

[–] pikameta 14 years ago

I thought that was the whole reason behind putting it right after House- talk about an Anti -Hero!

i think the reason the show didn't work is that with every bad guy protagonist- they know they're doing wrong and they don't give a crap about it...

Look at the list from above- Tony Soprano, Don Draper, Walter White, Gregory House-- yeah they're doing naughty naughty things, but they're still BA about it. Part of the "mystery" of Lone Star was supposed to be "when's he gonna get caught?" but if he spends all of his time ready to throw in the towel and confess, where's the DRAMA?

I liked this show and I was really looking forward to seeing where it was going, but I can see why it wasn't kept.

reply

[–] ActualSighs 14 years ago

Jack Bauer was an antihero and "24" managed to survive for 8 seasons. Fox made a lot of money off of that antihero.

reply

[–] kigaiyuuto 14 years ago

24 was an action type of show. It was created in early 2000s when most people stil watch broadcast TV. He didn't have 2 wives at the same time, not a con man etc.

FOX tried to revive the audience interest with the TV movie but people have moved on and 24 got canned.

reply

[–] physics101 14 years ago

24 ... was created in early 2000s when most people stil watch broadcast TV

Any numbers to back up this statement? It was my understanding that market penetration has been slow but steady over the past 30+ years, but that subscriber television was less than 60% at present. Meaning a few years ago it probably wasn't much less.

reply

[–] cineastral 14 years ago

Not to digress, but 24 was a good idea repeated too many times. The subplots of the later seasons got recycled so many times that the show was no more than a celebration of (stale) violence over anything else.

Lone Star's premise might have needed some more refinements, but at least it's a bit different, a sort of Don Juan for the modern age.

reply

[–] Guardsman_Bass 14 years ago

Moreover, the ratings for "24" weren't that great during its first season (8.60 million average viewers), although they were enough (coupled with strong critical praise and a lack of competition) to get the show renewed for more seasons.

reply

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

Jack Bauer's appeal was that he kicked bad guy a$$. Given what we've seen so far, Bob is the "bad guy" in this show.

Anti-heroes are very popular. But Bob isn't doing anything "heroic" here. He isn't doing "good" for the sake of anyone but himself. That's the hard part to swallow.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

reply

[–] AltaireIII 14 years ago

This show failed because it was up against Dancing With the Stars. Fox expected too much out of it. Any new show would face a tough situation on Monday night at 9PM.

reply

[–] deadbunny28 14 years ago

it was canned cus the few people who watch it are like me and watch their tv online...

reply

[–] dab6 14 years ago

24 was an action-thriller, this was a drama/soap opera so it's apples and oranges.

reply

[–] GaelinW 14 years ago

That may be true. But I was talking about anti-heroes which can be the protagonist in either an action/thriller or drama/soap opera.

“If they let Jack do it his way the show would be just 12” – snorgtees.com

reply