digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at ifc.com

20 Ways to Get Your "Arrested Development" Movie Fix*

ifc.com — Until they actually make the movie

Who dugg this? Made popular 22 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

43 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • casspa, on 11/06/2009, -0/+25Cant friggin wait for this movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0901469/
  • Ubergoober3, on 11/07/2009, -1/+24Arrested Development is the greatest tv series ever.
  • gankige, on 11/06/2009, -0/+20I still can't understand for the life of me why they cancelled the show in the first place. Obviously it had enough viewers.
  • novenator, on 11/06/2009, -0/+16It's because the studio execs don't know a damn thing about what makes a great show. They are so far removed from the ground level, that they pay attention to marketing formulas and greedy suits who have no sense of humor. It's pretty much the same with any big corporation that has too many tiers between the ground floor and top. Remember Family Guy got canceled too, although the DVD sales convinced the ***** at the top to put that one back on the air.
  • mcwattersm, on 11/07/2009, -2/+15I think it should be retitled "0 Ways to get your "Arrested Development" Movie Fix"
  • pwarnock, on 11/06/2009, -1/+12They're making a movie? I thought it was more of a hypothetical. Awesome.
  • priegog, on 11/07/2009, -0/+10Oh, you mean lost ratings as in "Fox deliberately moved it to the worst time slots to slowly kill the viewership and ultimately justify it's cancellation, the way they did with T:TSCC" ?
  • DAVENP0RT, on 11/07/2009, -0/+9You lost me at The Wedding Planner. Thanks, but no thanks.
  • nirv117, on 11/07/2009, -0/+8I'm afraid I just Blue myself
  • MattZed, on 11/07/2009, -0/+8You make it sound like it was the show's quality that caused it to lose viewers. The main reason that they lost viewers was the constantly changing show time and the lack of any real marketing campaign for it.
  • Spew120, on 11/07/2009, -0/+6In other words, "I didn't get it"
  • UndeadZmobie, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5BEES?!
  • bmiami69, on 11/07/2009, -0/+5awesome show, very funny, very witty writing and then it ends too quickly
  • priegog, on 11/07/2009, -0/+4Would anyone want a banger in the mouth?
  • svendm, on 11/07/2009, -0/+4What a fun, sexy time for you!
  • evergrim, on 11/07/2009, -0/+4I have often thought that the program directors for the major channels in Australia have almost no idea what they are doing or what makes good television. As an avid TV show watcher (mainly from torrents nowadays) I am sure I could do a better job.
  • ClarkNoHeart, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3I just got done rewatching the series from start to finish. Watched the last episode today. Such an amazing show.

    I can't believe I got all three seasons for like $40 from Amazon a couple years ago. What a steal.

    EDIT: Just checked Amazon and each season is currently $12.99 each so if you don't already own the series (hard to fathom, I know), now's your chance.
  • pimpofpixels, on 11/07/2009, -0/+32 hours may not get it done.

    I need at least 16 new hours of arrested development, and 2 hours would be a tease.

    Also, I don't know if the show's brand of subtle humor and running jokes would suit the movie format well.

    In the best case, this movie would be like 3 episodes of arrested development.

    In the worst case, the pacing of the movie format and the rush to fit many jokes into a short period of time might kill the chemestry.

    <fingers crossed>
  • po43292, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3They made a huge mistake.
  • sodapopsmash, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3ILLUSION michael. A trick is something a whore does for money....or caaandy.
  • po43292, on 11/07/2009, -0/+3You need a nap.
  • priegog, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2'nuff said
  • Krylez, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2Bread and beer share yeast as a common ingredient. If you like beer, you should try bread at your next party.
  • po43292, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2You need a Euphorazine.
  • capnawesome, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2..I can't believe I didn't know Ron Howard narrated the show until now. I've watched every episode and I always wondered who it was...and was too lazy to look it up.
  • Arseny89, on 11/07/2009, -0/+2I don't know if I', just drunk, if my interent is wrong or if I'm just drunk but I only counted 10 ways to get my Arrested Development fix in that article and they were all terrible.
  • worseforwine, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1Just watch Modern Family, not nearly as good, but take what you can get
  • eugenetabisco, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1It wasn't just a few people. Sometimes the Nielsen ratings are wrong. They don't account for many groups of people -- i.e. large groups of kids in a dorm living room. DVD sales of AD were especially strong. Also, given a little more time DVD sales could have helped increase the audience. I know people who didn't see the show until I lent them my DVDs and then they went and bought their own they loved the show so much. The sad thing -- they didn't even know the show existed. Fox did a poor job marketing it and moving it around.

    Also, a devoted cult following means more in ancillary markets than a more successful show with no merchandising or alternative channels of marketing. Executives in studios live in the here and now moment. Ratings are a chest-beating ritual of riding success which can be short-lived in a network executive's career. They must win the night to prove themselves. They rarely think about the future like that.
  • bubba9999, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1It's on Hulu, and IFC is currently rebroadcasting it.
  • SurrealDream, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1Why the hell was that article spread over 4 pages, across TWO different websites?!? I've never seen that done before.
  • PiggtailGirl, on 11/07/2009, -1/+2I wonder why they didn't put Michael Cera in every movie he's ever been in.
  • tidu, on 11/07/2009, -1/+2This movie will be a better theater-going experience than Snakes on a Plane...
  • howdareyou, on 11/07/2009, -1/+2If you want to see Judy Greer in a movie I'd recommend "What Planet Are You From?" it's not a good movie but she does show her *****. Which is a decent tie-in with AD.
  • priegog, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1@j035u5
    Because they now have much less succesful shows in preferential time-slots.
    Well that's not really a reason, is it? I was trying to point out precisely how senseless fox is.
    But I'll give you the explanation you seek (and this goes for all tv channels, but it's specially an issue in Fox because it's not been the first and certainly not the last epic show they've cancelled for no good reason (that they hadn'r provoked), and most of them even had great audiences:
    As I understand, every x amount of time fox execs are changed. This is mainly due to calm down the shareholders who want someone to be sacrificed when the network if not doing great on ratings (which is normally isn't).
    So every new exec get to approve new shows, right? some of them become their pet shows, the one's they're supposed to set them apart from the previous execs and help them maintain their position for longer. But then they have the problem that previous execs' pet shows are on the best time slots, and they can't just go and cancel their best audienced shows, that'd be carreer suicide...
    So what they do is move them around. It doesn't really matter too much to where, but their final destination is always friday nights. Where they lose ***** of viewers and that's how they get them cancelled. And put their own (more often crappy than not) pet shows on neutral time slots, and with time end up moving them to the best slots. But since they're not usually the GREATEST of shows, they don't do great compared to other networks, and alas, he is fired, a new exec is promoted and the cycle starts all over again.
    They couldn't care less not only about the viewers, but also about the actual wellbeing of the company. Shareholders don't undertand time slots, they don't get what show would make it. They don't make direct decisions. They hire someone who they think will do the best job possible. Arrested Develpment, I agree, may not have been super-mainstream, but they have a HUGE fanbase, die-hard and crazy loyal. I wouldn't know about all the advertisement, since I (like MANY others) found out about it when it was already cancelled. There is DEFINITELY a place for shows like that on TV (check battlestar galactica and similars). AD is not the best example, but other shows that WERE very mainstream also got cancelled. T:TSCC had lost viewers due to slacker writers, but it definitely started out good, and sure as hell ended up well. If it hadn't been cancelled I can bet you the 3rd season premiere would have beaten records.
    I could go on about other shows, but I'm sure many would do a better job. Firefly has also kind of niche, but could have definitely used the help of some promotion to younger audiences. The Serenity movie and DVD sales prove how succesful they could have been if they had been managed by less clueless and self-absorbed execs...
    Bah, whatever... broadcast tv is definitely not going to stay the same, and I predict as decisions are taken away from white-collar execs, and the industry stops being all about time slots, the number of quality shows will go up dramatically.
    Just wait and see
  • j035u5, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1@ priegog, why would a company as successful financially as fox be in the business of approving projects, pumping money into them and then deliberately sabotaging them. It couldn't just be the fact that they could make more money from showing something cheaper to produce with a more mainstream audience could it?
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -1/+1"...until they actually make the movie"

    I hope you guys have a BIG fix.
  • SDL486, on 11/07/2009, -1/+1So just watch a bunch of trailers?
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -3/+1Yeah..prirog...TAHT ***** again. Let's give you some facts. Actual FACTS, shall we?

    Fox promoted the ***** out of this show before it aired. In the months leading up to its debut, you couldn't go morethan 2 commercial breaks without seeing a promo for it. And during the 2003 playoffs, you couldn't go more an 2 innings without seeing the home plate ad for it. (It was pretty much that and 24 the whole game) And at least twice a game Joe Buck or Tim McCarver hyped the show.

    It then aired to like 6 million viewers. It had a nice time slot. It STAYED at that time slot for most o the first season. Yet even with all the hype and a steady time slot, it went from 6 million viewers in week one to about 4 million viewers by mid-season. It lost a THIRD of its audience despite huge promotion and a steady time slot. (But wait...you claim that everyone who watches gets hooked.,)

    At this point EVERY other network would have cancelled the show. But Fox did not. After just six epsidoes of failing ratings, Fox gave it hte greenlight for a full season. And it tried EVERYTHING to get move viewers. It ran mini-marathons on Fox, and ran all day marathons featuring the entire series to that point on FX. It even gave it the best time slot on TV for a special episode. Right after American Idol. And before you embarrass yourself by talking about how American Idol is for girls...just know that American Idol has far more young males watching that Arrested Development EVER did. Therefore, while the demographics did not match up well, it DID give them a lot more viewers that might like hte show. nfortuantely, none did.

    Then, even after a terrible first season ratings wise, Fox not only renewed it. but they gave it another GREAT time slot. Right behind the network's best scripted show, The Simpsons. And after a small bump in ratings at the start of hte second season, it again went downhill. By the middle of the season season, its audiece was down almost 50% from series premier. (Again..for a show that EVERYONE loves when they watch it supposedly...that is strange.)

    The FACT is that Fox only stated moving the show around after any and every other network would have pulled hte plug. They simply were NOT going to waste a valkuable time slot on a show that was never going to draw more than 4 million viewers. It would monumentally ***** stupid (which is hwy you think they should have done it) to do so.

    By season 3, it shouldn't have been on the air in the firstplace. There is NO WAY you can be an Arrested Development fan and think that those four craptastic episodes with Charlize Theoron were worthy of the name Arrested Development. The hsow had becme nothing but a series of "wink wink" i njokes. How the ***** did the writers think hat new fans were going to enjoy a show when they didn't understnad 90% of the jokes because you had to see previous episodes to laugh? Sorry, but watching George Michael as hte Star Wars kid was funny ONCE. Not 6 times.

    But don't letthe facts get in the way. Just keep telling you that Fox (the ONLY netowkr that didn't pass on the show, by the way) is evil for giving you 55 episodes off the show, rather than ZERO. OR rahter than 12 which is what hte ratings really would have warranted.

    Keep telling yourself that hte time slot hurt them, hoping that no one calls you on your ***** lie since hte show was kept very steady for an entire season and dropped every ***** week.

    Keep telling yourself that your opinion is a fact. Keep tellingyourself that you are SMARTER than other who didn't like the show. Keep telling yourself that the show was filled with "Intelligent Humor" as if "I just blue myself" ISN'T the lowest form of low-brow humor.

    I GURANTEE you I was a bigger fan of the show in season 1 and was looking forard to it LNGbefore you even heard of the show. The thing is, I have common sense and logic and undersntad why the show failed and that it had nothing to do with time slots or promotion.


    Now...when you go and bury me like the weak minded little bitch that you are, actually REFUTE what I said. Here are the main points:

    1. HUGE promotional push during World Series...hwhich had the exact demographics that the show was looking for
    2. Failed ratings from week 2.
    3. Steady time slot for most of the first season.
    4. Promotional push mid season with FX marathons and mini-marahtons on Fox as awell as post American Idol time slot forhte Julia Louis Dreyfus episode. (Maybe if the producers realized how much Julia pretty rmuch RUINED every ***** scene she was in on Seinfeld with her horrible overacting they wouldn't have chosen this episode to be their showcase.)
    5. Renewing the show for a second season when every other network canceled shows with far better ratingsand potential.
    6. Good time slot for the start of season 2.
    7. third season renewal despite two seasons of continuously diminishing ratings and losing MILLIONS of dollars per year.
    8. 55 episodes paid for despite the fact that shows that lost far less money get cancelled after 22 episodes.

    You want to blame people for no Arrested Development season 4? Blame the cast and crew of Arrested Devleopment. They could have stayed on the air either on the WB or Showtime. But they would have had to take a paycut. And it sure as ***** is reasonable for an employer to asked employees to take a pay cut when the employee is LOSING money for the company. Hurwitz refused to producehte show for any cheaper. As a stockholder in Fox at the time, I would have been pissed if they kept a show on the air that was losing millions of dollars and had no hope of turning things around.
  • EvilGrouse, on 11/07/2009, -4/+1Horrible show. Soon to be a horrible movie.
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -4/+0you need a brain.
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -6/+1It IS hypothetical at this point. All talk. No script. No studio backing. Nothing but talk right now.

    And by the time it comes out even if it is on schedule, it will be 5+ years removed from the sho going off hte air. If they are expecting any studio to put money into this, they are nuts. A show that barely had 3 million viewers when it was FREE is not going to make money.
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -5/+0Obviously it had enough viewers? Where are yu getting that assumption from?

    the show lost MILLIONS ofdolalrs a year. IT was very expensive to produce compared to a normal sitcom due to its large cast and single camera/movie style filming method, comapred to the live on tape method. And its ratings were abysmal. It did not have a lot of fans. and as much as people want to fool themselves otherwise, it was NOT able to keep fans it had. It lost fans every single season. And in first half of htefirst season, it lost fans EVERY SINGLE SHOW! Not an exaggeration. Every single episode had lower ratings than the week before. Yet peoplestill claimed that everyone who watched the show was hooked for life. (Which would mean the ratings would ALWAYS increase...which is just the opposite of reality.)
  • inactive, on 11/07/2009, -7/+1Or...it isx becuase you don't understnad that TV is a business and it is monumentally stupid to lose millions of dollars just to keep a few people happy.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.