Do we really need nine seasons of 'Desperate Housewives'?
Twitter
Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry has said in the past that he would walk away from his show after seven seasons, and that he hoped ABC wouldn't continue it without him.
But the show's renewed creative vigor this season -- along with ratings that are still pretty strong, if not what they were in its white-hot early days -- now has him leaning toward sticking around for nine seasons, all the way through 2012-13.
That seems like an awfully long time from now, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that Cherry and his cast and crew have essentially just made it halfway there. He made his remarks at a ceremony celebrating the 100th episode of Desperate Housewives, which will air in January, and if he makes a deal to stay with the show through nine seasons, that's another 100 episodes or so that he'll be overseeing.
There's no deal in place yet; Cherry told folks at the 100th-episode party that he had just started talking with his bosses, ABC chief Steve McPherson and ABC Studios president Mark Pedowitz, about the extension. Cherry seems confident that they'll be able to make things work.
It's not hard to see why ABC would be interested either. Housewives is one of the few broad-based hits still on TV -- it's averaging better than 17 million viewers this season, and its 6.6 rating in the holy-grail adults 18-49 demo is second only to Grey's Anatomy. There has been the inevitable erosion since its game-changing first season, but lots of other hot new shows have burned out completely in far less time. That the show is still a force five seasons in is pretty impressive in the current climate.
I'd also agree with Cherry that the show has enjoyed a bit of a creative bounce this year by jumping ahead in time five years. The characters haven't changed all that much -- Bree is as tightly wound as she's ever been, and Gaby is about as self-centered as a mother can be and still keep her kids -- but the way the show has filled in the details of what happened in the intervening time (and, frankly, the way it's left some details vague) has definitely given a jolt to the storytelling.
But it's hard to think of even a handful of shows that remained creatively vital that late in life -- especially ones that are as character-centric as Desperate Housewives is. Some of my critical brethren believe that no show should last longer than five years. That may be a little draconian, but I'm inclined to think that Cherry's initial idea about stopping after seven seasons was a good one. Will we really still be interested in Lynette's suspect parenting, Gaby's shallowness and Susan's general dingbattery four years from now?
If any showrunner is capable of keeping his baby on track for that long, Cherry is probably the guy. He has always been pretty clear-eyed about the strengths and weaknesses of Desperate Housewives, and he's shown a facility for adding or subtracting elements (the casting of Dana Delany last year, for instance, and this season's move away from the more repetitive aspects of Susan and Mike's relationship) to give the show a shot in the arm.
If Cherry can pull off the extended time, more power to him. TV history would say that the odds aren't necessarily in his favor.
Post a comment
- Most Liked
- Most Commented
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! !
Nine seasons is a lot. Serialized shows should not air that long. Stick to following Lost's playbook. End it while it's good.
Five to seven seasons is enough. I've always preferred quality over quantity.
The inexplicable survival of Desperate Housewives for 9 years is an object lesson in how life simply isn't fair. It survives 9 years, while brilliance such as Pushing Daisies gets cancelled in 2. No, life isn't fair at all.
Pushing Daises is a bit sugary for my taste buds, which I think alot of viewers jumped ship over the summer.
Pushing Daisies wasn't all that. The narration was intrusive, and I didn't really care for the Chuck character. I liked everyone else, but it was also a little too Dr. Suess for me visually.
Desperate Housewives is a decent show nowadays. It's certainly better than 'Heroes', though I wouldn't have said that during the latter's first season. I do think nine seasons sounds like a lot, but then again 'Knot's Landing' ran for 14 seasons.
Should it? Like there's some sort of morality involved in a show running nine years versus seven?
If the viewers want to continue watching, it only makes good business sense to continue. There have been plenty of shows that I feel should have been allowed to die, but Desperate Housewives hasn't hit that point... at least not this season. (Two seasons ago, during the son in the basement cell plot, I wouldn't have expected to make this response.)
Well i say go for it.... If 5 years is when most shows should end then i guess ncis and csi among some of the more popular should have ended already...I am sure alot of fans would have flipped if that was the case...
I'm surprised they even thought seven was the way to go. Just getting back to the first season; the narrator kept presenting us all these girls from Wisteria Lane and they (the network) had us trying to figure out how SHE tied in; at the end of the season the "case was resolved". I don't think they knew what direction was next. Same case with "Heroes". The first season was like one story; a start and end (no cliff-hanger). From that ending on they had no idea where to take the story to.
Just My Opinion.
I don't mind it going nine seasons as long as it stays fresh and interesting.
Season five is still good with the exception of Teri Hatcher's storyline. They should kill off that annoying boyfriend of hers.
That's way too many seasons for a show such as this. 7 should be tops and quit while they are ahead. That's what Ray Romano and Jerry Seinfeld did, so I'd suggest Marc Cherry does the same thing with this show. Seven and out.