It really is sad how this show was axed. - Smash (2012) Discussion

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Frankly, I don't agree with the thread title, though I do agree with your post, if you add one word - MOST of the cast was "killer." The remaining cast member was "killer" in another sense - Katharine McPhee, and the perverse insistence by TPTB that the show focus on her, and her insipid and unbelievable character, was what killed the show's chances of being great.

I had an interesting "Smash" moment over the holidays - my brother-in law and his wife visited us; she likes musicals, but hadn't watched "Smash." I called up the YouTube clip of Megan Hilty's "Don't Forget Me" for her to watch - and my brother in law took one look, said, "Oh, Marilyn Monroe!" and sat down with us. Both were absolutely floored by Hilty.

I then put on Katharine McPhee's version. The comments - "well, she's good, but nowhere near the first one. And I wouldn't have known she was supposed to be Marilyn."

As a reward for their perception, I played them "They Just Keep Moving the Line," which they found amazing.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] writegirl1-2 11 years ago

"And I wouldn't have known she was supposed to be Marilyn."

Interesting... not something I would have considered outright, but it's a great, viable option of double checking a project such as this. "Can you tell who this is supposed to be?"

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

No, I hadn't thought of it, either, but the one-glance identification of Hilty's Ivy's Marilyn, and the lack of it for McPhee's Karen's, was eye-opening - and very telling.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

Locusnola, I know you have said that as much as you prefer her live, you don't like to watch her full through but she was recently in Florida doing a concert and she sang many Smash songs. Here she sings "Don't Forget Me" and there are links to songs like "Never Give All The Heart", "Cut, Print...Moving on" that you might like. You have said previously that there is a spark, a life in McPhee's live vocals that is absent from her Smash ones. I really don't know how this reflects McPhee and not the production. Because "Public Relations" was filmed in a cupboard and you say that is her best performance. I can't imagine a big live audience in a broom closet. Why would her studio vocals be different, unless edited to fit the show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYLp1cB2mSE

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

As I have said before - more than once, many performers take energy from a live audience, the connection (live performance is an electric experience, there is an almost palpable current flowing between performer and audience) likely fires McPhee, enlivens her vocals.

Her studio vocals lack a live audience, and lack spark and liveliness - it is reasonable to think the two are not unrelated. I suspect that the rushed, haphazard recording in the broom closet provided a sense of spontenaiety that breathed life into that specific performance.

I have said all this before. All of it. You do have a tendency to ask the same questions of me over and over - why is that?

Oh - and thanks, enjoy away, but I'm not a fan, although I acknowledge McPhee's gift for concert singing. I really have too many exciting things to watch to seek out something I feel tepidly about, at best.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

You have said previously that there is a spark, a life in McPhee's live vocals that is absent from her Smash ones. I really don't know how this reflects McPhee and not the production.

I wasn't asking you to repeat yourself. I was only saying what you have already expressed before about the contrast in energy you feel in McPhee recording vs McPhee live. I personally would think that McPhee being in a crammed, small, enclosed broom closet and singing a big, lively, upbeat production number would not go very well if she indeed fed off of the live audience more. In a recording studio, she has a bigger audience in front of her than she would in a cupboard.

I wasn't aware that Public Relations was rushed and that's why you think the buzz to get it done quickly is what made it so good, as oppose to being leisurely and relaxed in a comfortable studio.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

It really is sad. The show had such strength in casting but chose to focus on its weakest link, which just couldn't carry the weight. It's like the show committed suicide. The most tragic thing is that people wanted a show like this and wanted what it could and should have been, and now that Smash is over nobody's going to make another show like it for a long time (if ever).

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

You never know. With Glee, Smash and Nashville, the opportunity for musical television shows are very possible now. When Glee began, I had no interest in watching it. I don't like musicals and I am not a musical theatre person but I misjudged it. I thought it was High School Musical the tv show and dismissed it. Boy was I wrong. Glee was smart, funny, hilarious, quirky and incorporated songs into an organic setting. The characters didn't progress stories by singing; they sang in Glee club, on stage, or in their imagination. It worked and it was great. It quickly lost its way and it absolutely nothing like what it started now. Smash was solely about the creation of a musical theatre production and the world of Broadway: something I thought I had no interest in. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Again, there is reason for the characters to sing, I loved the production values, the cast, the behind the scenes look at New York theatre. Smash- especially when factoring DVR viewers, which was responsible for most of its audience in season 2- had a big fanbase. The reason it was cancelled was probably because it was so expensive. It cost $4m an episode. I'm sure if it was cheaper to make, it would still be on the air. Though characters and plot were handled badly at times, I loved Smash and will truly miss it. But when the show was cancelled, it was spoke about and written about more than any other show. It was popular and with the audience that it had, someday they might make a new version of it.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

I didn't mean just a "musical show" - there will always be those - I was talking about a show about Broadway, with Broadway performers in the cast.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

Sorry, I was actually meaning to make that the entire point of my last post and forgot to even get there . Smash, for me, is hands down the best of musical television. Nashville is more of a soap-opera drama about country music stars, so I wouldn't say it even intends to be taken as a musical show- just a show centred around musicians; Glee was about underdogs and a girl ascent to stardom before it boycotted its original format and became a show about theme-of-the-weeks. Smash was a look at the lives, production of a show and the making of Broadway stars. I'm sure many people would agree that Smash is in a league of its own.

I hope there will be another show like Smash and can honestly see there being another attempt. It doesn't matter to me if the people in the cast are actual Broadway performers. Katharine McPhee hasn't been near Broadway in her life and she had me completely fooled as one of them.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

It doesn't matter to me if the people in the cast are actual Broadway performers. Katharine McPhee hasn't been near Broadway in her life and she had me completely fooled as one of them.

If there were only more like you, the show could have succeeded.

The problem is, you aren't the audience they marketed the show to. They got that audience for the premiere and it was in record-breaking numbers. But the more they focused on Karen/Katharine, the more they hemorrhaged viewers until the ratings sank to where they just had to end it. Suicide, like I said.

None of that is just my opinion; it's documented and a lot of us here watched it happen in real-time.

Now this is my opinion: If they'd dumped McPhee after the first season, or never cast her at all, we'd be looking at a third season now.

reply

[–] writegirl1-2 11 years ago

The problem is, you aren't the audience they marketed the show to. They got that audience for the premiere and it was in record-breaking numbers. But the more they focused on Karen/Katharine, the more they hemorrhaged viewers until the ratings sank to where they just had to end it. Suicide, like I said.

Well, to be fair, part of that is part of a larger problem; some of those folks probably tuned out because they believed the line of hogwash about a realistic gritty look at backstage Broadway, and knew once they met 'the ingenue' they weren't going to get it, which is part on the writers. I don't know when we could specifically say we lost those people in the run but a large portion of the question hinges on (a) why people tuned in in the first place; (b), what was different in the actuality from their expectations in theory. Some of those answers might be:

(1) 9 months of $2MM early ad campaign led those people to believe that this show was not in fact an ensemble show, but was in fact a show about Katharine McPhee's character.

The flaw, of course, with this, is that those people seem more likely, not less, to continue to watch, unless they really aren't Kat fans. They might like her a little, but maybe they were looking to see the same experience they had with her in American Idol, and thought just her presence, since they'd most likely never heard of her as an actress before, has to make this show more like "The Voice".

(2) Its lead-in WAS "The Voice", which further led them down this primrose path of illogic. The show is about how Katharine McPhee competes against this blonde woman to be Queen of the Broadway World.

The flaw with this is, I don't recall the precise figures about retention from prior programs, but I do know they aren't large enough to account for 3-4 million people sticking around from "The Voice", and who could comprise the fallout from the pilot to 1.2.

(3) The overall writing is deemed bad. Other people cringed at "maybe I should just get fat" from Karen; know enough to roll their eyes when Ellis hints strongly that he's going to bring a copyright claim because gosh, saying "there should be a musical about Marilyn Monroe" is JUST LIKE creating the thing; gee, that Derek guy kinda strikes me like somebody acting like a monster when there's no need to act like a monster; and why is Anjelica Huston throwing a drink in the face of that poor man?

Feel free to add on, naturally. One thing I have more or less ruled out is those people (unlike our alleged focus groups) do not seem likely to have tuned out of the show specifically because "there's less Kat McPhee than I thought there would be". Because I think those people fall out of #1; namely, people who would think that, are going to be die-hard and interested enough to continue to watch to see if more and more of the show is going to center around her as time wears on.

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Great thoughts, as always. A couple of comments -

I came to "Smash" having seen no promotion at all, and only vaguely aware of the show's existence before my friend requested my take. And, of course, having marathoned Season 1, I watched Season 2 from the bitter beginning to the sweet(er, relatively speaking) end.

So I didn't know it was "a thinly-disguised Katharine McPhee conquers Broadway, carrying all before her, without lifting so much as a finger or making the slightest effort" until the Season 1 finale. I couldn't quite believe, despite all signals and signs, that we would end without either 1) the obviously magnificent Hilty triumphing, or 2) the heretofore-insufferably bland McPhee unveiled at last as at minimum reasonable rival. Alas, mMy first viewing of the Season 1 conclusion left me feeling I had been made to watch a beloved pet tortured to death, my second, wanting Derek Wills to die as slowly and painfully as possible, as a stand-in for the INSANELY UNJUST (to Hilty/Ivy) PTB.

Indeed, I can't say McPhee even phoned it in, that would require at least the work of pushing a button or two. To be fair, I believe she was doing her execrable best.

I suspect that I am not unique in my feelings; I further suspect tens of thousands, at least, felt much as I did at, say, mid-Season 1, and had not promised to watch, so they stopped. And many of those who may have tuned back in online for the first hour of the Season 2 premiere may very likely have snorted in disgust and turned to less preposterous entertainment. There is some support for these conjectures in comments here, on TWoP, and on the recap websites.

Some here have posted that "Smash" was touted as "Glee" for grown-ups, or as "The West Wing" on Broadway. I wish it had lived up to either claim (although, since I stopped watching "Glee" after two Season 3 episodes, it is certainly possible that "Smash" was comparable to the later, unwatchable for me, seasons).

It appears that Katharine McPhee is a successful singer, but certainly no superstar. A recent USA Today article, http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/01/14/tv-singing-shows-star s-story/4478095, ONLY mentions McPhee in a list of AI's top sellers - she is 18th on the list. Her fanbase does not even suffice to sell all three of her released albums - in total - in half the number of Season 2 "Smash" watchers, which was considered abysmal.

That McPhee cannot act is now a generally accepted precept - of course, there are always a few delusional/undiscerning folk. As I've noted in another post, there are a great number of well-acted, tightly written series on television; McPhee and the writing, which was made worse than it might have been by the preposterousness of pushing her at us as a madly gifted actress have to have turned off a million or two viewers.

Is is undeniably true that, as Katharine/Karen was pushed ever more front and center, and Megan/Ivy relegated to tertiary-status screentime and song-time, viewership plummeted.

TPTB counted on theatre folks (professionals and afficionadoes both) watching - and they got a good many of us, but we watched in spite of the purported heroine, holding our noses, gagging, and snarking wherever possible. I don't think it likely that NBC regards our overall contribution as a positive.

The show is about how Katharine McPhee competes against this blonde woman to be Queen of the Broadway World

And this was the awfulness in a nutshell. Which lent at least some beauty to the series finale, with the "blonde woman" and HER show receiving their rightful Tony awards, and "our Ivy" in the arms of the alpha male prize, such as he was.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

If they'd dumped McPhee after the first season, or never cast her at all, we'd be looking at a third season now.

What might have been . . . sigh.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

If there were only more like you, the show could have succeeded.

The show did succeed in season 1 though, no? It averaged 6-7 million viewers and that went up to 9-10 million in the DVR's. I have no idea if that's enough to warrant $4m per episode, but it's no small audience. If it were CBS then there'd be trouble. Are you saying that because the second season became The Karen Show (which I have openly said I didn't like because she was pretty dislikeable in season and other characters- namely Ivy and Eileen- weren't getting developed properly) that the audience tuned out because they felt so strongly against Karen? You could be right. But it's not like she was in every scene. Not even close to it. Debra Messing regained her title as the "lead" of the leads in season 2, at least from my perspective.

But the more they focused on Karen/Katharine, the more they hemorrhaged viewers until the ratings sank to where they just had to end it.

There is not way of knowing that. Are NBC stupid? Do you really think they would push for Katharine McPhee to be pushed more and more into the audiences faces if they thought it would reject them? I know the majority of this board don't care for McPhee as an actress, a singer or a person, but audiences did like her in season 1. Season 2 is a different story because her character, like many of us agree, began to be irritating.

Now this is my opinion: If they'd dumped McPhee after the first season, or never cast her at all, we'd be looking at a third season now.

I don't think one person could seal the fate of a production with Steven Spielberg at the helm, with Messing and Huston, the producers of Chicago and Hairspray, Broadway stars and a promotional campaign of its size.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

But the more they focused on Karen/Katharine, the more they hemorrhaged viewers until the ratings sank to where they just had to end it.

There is not way of knowing that. Are NBC stupid? Do you really think they would push for Katharine McPhee to be pushed more and more into the audiences faces if they thought it would reject them?

Wink notes a fact. The Karen-pushing may not have been the sole causative factor, but the correlation is undeniable. As it became - even in Season 1 - more and more clear that Karen was firmly fixed as the pretty-pretty princess, and Ivy given more and more grief, viewership dropped steadily. We know what happened in Season 2 - more of the same. The show doubled down on McPhee, and viewers more than doubled down on staying away.

Are the NBC bigwigs stupid? Well, their network is in the cellar generally as regards ratings, and they certainly were moronic here. With ratings dropping so precipitously for Season 1, they had to know the reactions. There was plenty of love for Hilty and disgust over McPhee - and NBC knew it. They also knew the critical reaction - which was almost universally anti-McPhee. Hilty was, repeatedly, dubbed "the real breakout star." So, while assuring us that they heard the audience, had addressed the glaring problems, would provide more balance - TPTB doubled McPhee's screen time and halved Hilty's. And the "problems" they addressed pretty much came to cutting Leo and Ellis and not making Debra Messing wear scarves, and tossing a small splinter of bone by making the now-sidelined Ivy nicer. Does that sound smart? Not to me.

ETA: It is worth noting that, absent the McMania that seems to have visited TPTB throughout, the wrting would likely have improved significantly - no idiocies such as Karen emerging utterly golden after messing up the bar mitzvah (it has been noted that she was supposed to be seen to have bombed generally at the event, but gets the card from the record producer anyway, because of her pretty voice - but no, Karen could not been seen as anything but golden, no matter what). The writers also put forth the notion of Jerry firing her from "Bmbshell" following her defiance in performing in "Hit List" after receiving notice that this breached her contract. TPTB said, "oh, no, we can't have them fire her!" This would have been utterly within Equity rules, whereas Ivy's being fired because Karen finds her distracting would be grounds for a hefty lawsuit.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] writegirl1-2 11 years ago

Don't forget, which can be borne out by several people here quite well who visited there fairly regularly, that even NBC's Smash Facebook channel could be counted upon to push Kat relentlessly to the exclusion of others. Most of the "What choice do you think [Character X] will make?" queries, were about something Karen had done or would do. Our resident Anjelica fan was up in arms one day, having come back to report that nobody mentioned Anjelica and even on a day after she had chaired a large charity event, the daily post was "What do you think of this adorable outfit Kat is wearing?", or if not precisely that, some entry which resulted in lots of "Loveeeeee those shoes, Kat! Mwah!"-type responses, which was really discouraging.

Which also leads me to wonder how much work that networks have actually put into seeing how likely it is that people are going to come and give their true feelings about what they think about TV shows to begin with, when their real name is attached with regularity. While it doesn't seem to stop some Facebook people ranting like they're at a bar with a group of their closest friends, I should think it would stop others. I know it stops me. Plus, it has always seemed like the height of bad manners to go over to NBC's playground and input "Don't you people ever talk about anything but Kat?" Megan/Ivy pictures were SO comparatively skimpy, I once must've diligently reloaded until I got to 6 weeks' worth of posts, if not more. It was like Kat got 85% and everybody else had to split the remaining 15%. Maybe none of the other actors knew they needed to negotiate social media in their contracts. I think it would've been great if they had pushed Anjelica's charity work, or anybody's charity work, really. It would've been the classy move to make, that's for sure. It seems like NBC ran that channel like a literal popularity contest. And maybe there's good marketing research behind that theory.

All I know is, it didn't help Smash break out, and the entire underlying problem with that, IS the nature of what we call "a popularity contest". By definition, as we tell our children and have for at least a century, popularity is a shallow measure. Facebook is a shallow medium. It makes sense that many of the lovey-your-shoes crowd doesn't spend enough of their time thinking about Kat, outside of wondering "What is on NBCSmash Facebook this day?", to make an overall difference to Smash's standing or her career in general.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

With the regards to the NBC Smash page, I just scrolled through a years worth of their photos and literally none of them were "What do you think of Katharine's outfit? Mwah". In fact, hardly any of them were about Katharine- even Karen. But, a lot of the comments are those sort of people. You know, the ones who lack any sort of depth and can only say "she's so pretty" or "omg I love her". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I understand the dislike for people who idolise a celebrity, simply because they're attractive. With Katharine, she appeals to those young fans. She is a classically gorgeous, very slim, stylish, pop girl and that appeals to younger fans. Megan has a much more "mature" style of beauty, if that makes sense. People who would find Megan absolutely gorgeous, may not find Katharine to be anything special; and vice versa. Both are stunning, just very different types but Katharine's style appeals to the "tweens".

And Facebook is a marketplace for that demographic. Anjelica Huston is a legend, an icon, known for her work and her status as an actress and celebrity. As shallow as it is, a lot of younger viewers who go on Facebook, aren't particularly interested in charities and such. Would have been nice for them to post about it to show support for Anjelica, but in the Facebook market, how to buy a t-shirt with the Smash logo on it is more pressing than charitable contributions.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Katharine McPhee hasn't been near Broadway in her life and she had me completely fooled as one of them.

You, the most rabid contingent of her die-hard fan base, and no-one else. Even a significant number of the McPhans acknowledged her weakness as an actress.

And this was a significant factor in the show's failure. Television acting has improved over the decades; there are any number of competently acted series. Moreover, I can't recall another show of recent date where a sub-par performer is pushed forward as a character with a purportedly huge talent which an increasingly discerning audience can see the performer lacks utterly.

The disconnect is insulting to the intelligent viewer.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

You, the most rabid contingent of her die-hard fan base, and no-one else.

You tell me I'm a part of her rabid fanbase, but I'm not. I like McPhee. I like her a lot. I think she belongs in front of the camera, she is naturalistic on screen. She is a phenomenal singer. I couldn't fault her in Smash. But Debra Messing is the one I'm "the most rabid contingent of a die-hard fan base" for.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

You mistake me, it was a list, not a lumping - you AND the most rabid etc.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

You tell me I'm a part of her rabid fanbase, but I'm not. I like McPhee. I like her a lot. I think she belongs in front of the camera, she is naturalistic on screen.

I think what was meant is - so many of her fans love her dearly but acknowledge that acting isn't her forte and she doesn't quite have the voice for Broadway. They'll still camp out in a blizzard and walk on bare knees through broken glass if they have to, to get tickets to her concert! But it would be a dream come true for them if Katharine would go back to acting school and gain the skills that could make her the mega-TV/Movie-star they want her to be.

Her more "rabid" fans pretend (or some may sincerely believe) she does not have those shortcomings.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

so many of her fans love her dearly but acknowledge that acting isn't her forte and she doesn't quite have the voice for Broadway.

The Broadway voice thing, you're born with that, or you're not. You can't train to sound like Megan Hilty or Lea Michele. It's in innate gift. But McPhee is a flawless singer. She's incredible and what she did in Smash, the Broadway numbers and the pop numbers, were faultless. I can listen to both versions of Don't Forget Me and realise there is a 'belt' in Megan's that Katharine physically cannot do; not because of technical fault. I think both girls are equally fantastic at singing and do not think one better than the other or vice versa because one lacks/holds the ability to Broadway Belt. But I can understand why Broadway fans and audiences would be offended (?) at the casting of McPhee as an aspiring- turned star- Broadway performer.

As an actress, I watch her work in the Pilot alone and do not understand what you say is missing. The bathroom scene when she was holding back tears, but knew the man outside could make her dreams come true if she "showed him everything she had" is a great example. She doesn't want to do it; but she has to. She's anxious and hurt; but she knows this opportunity won't come knocking twice. She showcases her chemistry with Raza Jaffrey. She can be energetic and has a screen presence. She demonstrates her fantastic singing skills.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

The Broadway voice thing, you're born with that, or you're not. You can't train to sound like Megan Hilty or Lea Michele. It's in innate gift.

Actually, no-one is born with a "Broadway" voice, or innate belt capabilities. McPhee's instrument has sufficient power - she could easily have been trained to belt. I myself trained for belt, as well as opera, a little. Belt is a technique; it has to do principally with vocal placement - forward in the mouth, under the hard palate. I can still do it, with some effort. My voice was not exceptionally powerful, but I could have managed Broadway (and actors weren't miced, in those days), with enough training; my coaches said this very confidently. I just wasn't much interested in performing in musicals, in the end.

McPhee does not have a Broadway voice because she did not train in that technique. She is also faulty in breath control, and her vowels are often cringeworthy in their impurity - pop singing frequently distorts vowels, purposely, but listen to the difference between the Broadway performers' vowel sounds and McPhee's. Listen to her in "Under Pressure," - "why can't we give luhhhrve, These, too, are learned, not innate.

Here endeth this particular lesson.

Oh, right. o, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

As an actress, I watch her work in the Pilot alone and do not understand what you say is missing.

You could probably find a good scene from even the worst actor in the world (likewise, you could find a clunker from the best). What you can't do is take that one scene or one episode and generalize from it. You look at their whole body of work.

She did well in the Pilot. That's why so many viewers and critics asked afterwards as the season progressed "What in the world happened?"

We don't know whether she had longer to rehearse that particular episode, or she had intensive coaching, or she worked harder, or she just got lucky, or they shot that scene fifty times before it was right, or all of the above. Whatever the magic was, it's a shame it couldn't have happened again during the rest of the series.

Hallmark TV movies may be perfect for her, this may be her niche. Just a month of shooting and it's over, and nobody watches those with high expectations for the acting or anything else, so she won't be under the same scrutiny.

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I didn't mean just a "musical show" - there will always be those - I was talking about a show about Broadway, with Broadway performers in the cast.

Will there always be musical shows, though? We've had a little spate of them, yes, "Glee," (beautifully sent-up recently as "Drama Camp" in "The Good Wife"), "Smash," "Nashville." But musical shows have traditionally failed, except for the reality competitions, haven't they? I wonder whether they are a fashion which will fade.

As for a show about Broadway, I think you are right - smgfans in practically the same breath touts "Smash's" production values and then postulates doing the show more cheaply - which would, of course, eviscerate the production values.

There does remain the great "Slings & Arrows," the show that got it right about staging theatre (and even had its own hilarious "Rent" rip-off in the third and final season, starring a wide-eyed brunette triple-threat imbecile, in an uncanny satiric precursor).

But "Smash," I suspect, will be a legendary failure. So much that was good, stupidly throttled to death by a thousand blank-eyed stares, and 32(?) scripts.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

smgfans in practically the same breath touts "Smash's" production values and then postulates doing the show more cheaply - which would, of course, eviscerate the production values.

Smash cost $4m an episode. I assume that budget covers the salaries of Spielberg, Messing, Huston, the rest of the cast, the ensemble dancers, shooting the show in the heart of New York City and then the actual production numbers. If it didn't have the creative team behind it and the fame of its leads (and was filmed in Los Angeles, posing as New York) then a Broadway she could easily be made for a lot, lot cheaper than Smash was.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

Spielberg doesn't take salary, he takes profit - that $4MM would cover the actors, writers, directors, crew, location costs, lighting, costuming, sound studios & mixing time, transportation etc., etc.

You don't know Los Angeles or New York, or you'd never make a suggestion so laughable to a native - you might sub Toronto, it's done, but let me tell you any show purporting to be sited on Broadway and shot anywhere but New York would incite outrage, protest, boycotts, possibly violence. And quite right, too.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

What you said, plus - I suspect the construction and labor and production and post-production necessary to make a believable (which it would never truly be) fake NYC in Los Angeles would cost more in the long run than just filming the thing in NYC.

reply

[–] locusnola 11 years ago

I suspect the construction and labor and production and post-production necessary to make a believable (which it would never truly be) fake NYC in Los Angeles would cost more in the long run than just filming the thing in NYC.

I hope 1) you are right, and 2) that if ever such a show is contemplated, that fact would but paid to any notion of filming elsewhere. I wish I could say I had any confidence in network powers making even a fiscally smart decision . . . . after the Phizzling McPhanfare, I have't . . .

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

reply

[–] tinysnapdragon123 11 years ago

I gotta agree with smgfan on the location issue. They could have filmed much more cheaply elsewhere and used establishing shots and select location shoot from NY. Filming things like the Times Square sing-a-long costs a fortune and is totally unnecessary.

They blew a bundle filming in NY unnecessarily.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

Spielberg doesn't take salary, he takes profit

Interesting. So, since Smash was deemed "unsuccessful" because of its live ratings
by NBC, would it a reasonable assumption to say that Spielberg did not make any money from Smash? If that is the role of a producer, then did the character of Eileen not make any money at all during the production stages, because the show had not opened to make profit? I assumed she would have a salary while working and only the investors would make profits. I thought the same for Spielberg. Or did he invest to become an executive producer?

You don't know Los Angeles or New York, or you'd never make a suggestion so laughable to a native - you might sub Toronto, it's done, but let me tell you any show purporting to be sited on Broadway and shot anywhere but New York would incite outrage, protest, boycotts, possibly violence. And quite right, too.

Ugly Betty did it. Ringer did it. Friends, Will and Grace, Mad Men etc have all done it. As long as it's a great stage, with great lights and theatre essentials, the Broadway performances would be fine. If it did what Charmed did at the beginning of each episode and show countless shots of San Francisco, you could easily convince someone a show is set in NYC.

Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] writegirl1-2 11 years ago

So, since Smash was deemed "unsuccessful" because of its live ratings
by NBC, would it a reasonable assumption to say that Spielberg did not make any money from Smash? If that is the role of a producer, then did the character of Eileen not make any money at all during the production stages, because the show had not opened to make profit? I assumed she would have a salary while working and only the investors would make profits. I thought the same for Spielberg. Or did he invest to become an executive producer?

Rule #1 in Hollywood is: Never invest your own money.

Rule #2 is: Nobody makes any money.

Here's a long but interesting explication of Rule #2 as it applies to Hollywood:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accoun ting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtm l

Madonna's worth nearly a billion dollars, but she still made some other suckers pay for her last $15M film and didn't open her own purse. It's more common for a Broadway producer to invest in their own work. Of course Dreamworks "invested" in Smash and thus Spielberg did too, but Spielberg's not "an investor" per se, because studio operating funds aren't going into his personal pocket, except insofar as he's getting a salary for being a managing director (? guessing his title here) of the studio. Personal fees would also be whatever he got for being the executive producer, and I'm sure he has percentages of the ancillary rights on DVD, etc. sales, but I don't know what those figures are. Based upon my own personal disinclination to buy even as much as a "Team Ivy" t-shirt I am biased to say it's not robust, although it's possible I'm also mainly not the audience and somebody buys them, it's not like I've ever seen a Smash cell phone case or "Team Ivy/Karen" t-shirt in the wild in NYC either. In a nutshell; he'll make his points on merch. He could have gotten the same EP fees he got for Smash on some other project, so I am disinclined to count those fees as part of his "making money" from Smash. It's really Dreamworks that would profit, and swelling the profit of Dreamworks is mainly useful insofar as leverage and backup for whatever value someone might attach on buying out Spielberg if/when he decides to go.

reply

[–] Wink23 11 years ago

As for a show about Broadway, I think you are right - smgfans in practically the same breath touts "Smash's" production values and then postulates doing the show more cheaply - which would, of course, eviscerate the production values.

It's so frustrating. Of course they could have lowered the cost by taking away everything that made the show so successful in the premiere and so very eagerly and excitedly looked forward to by the audience that every network dreams of! The affluent audience. Which they proceeded to alienate episode by episode until they ran 'em all off. Which, if they'd managed (chosen, more like) to keep that audience, high production cost wouldn't have mattered, they'd be making a fortune.

reply

[–] smgfans 11 years ago

The affluent audience. Which they proceeded to alienate episode by episode until they ran 'em all off.

When Smash's ratings were at its lowest in season 2 (before being shipped to the Saturday night slot) it was the number 1 rated television show for households earning $100,000+ annually.
Here's an idea: next time, instead of being late, just *beep* on my face-Emma Stone

reply

[–] bubskiely 11 years ago

Yep I know.
Herd in Australia we still get it ins on Tuesday night\morning at 12am. Its the last season 😞 wish it was longer. Because. I love it

reply

[–] lightkeeper-1 10 years ago

I watched only a few episodes when it was aired primetime but find a good buy on season on season one DVD set and was looking forward to watching season two. Guess now I'll have to also get it on DVD.

reply