2 hour beginning

[inuvik]

Something Maggie said a while ago popped into my head recently and I've been turning it over.

She once said somewhere that Pilot and Up on the Roof were really two halves of the same story, and I basically agree. This got me thinking. You know how many TV series now premiere with a 2 hour format, either a 2 hour movie or simply 2 episodes tacked together? What if BJ had done this with these 2 episodes? Would it have helped or hindered?

I am not really sure. Part of me thinks it would have helped as it may have really interested viewers in some great drama. Many reviewers, and we too, felt that the first three were not that great as Jim was relying on his nose to "sniff out the criminal". But then, it may have been too heavy before people really knew the characters. It also plays a great deal of BJ dramatic tension right off the bat--then all that is left in that respect is "the gun", for later episodes.

What does everyone think? Would it have helped or hindered the series?

[anna]

That is an interesting question. As I recall, the ratings dropped every week that the show aired, so many viewers who gave the show a chance past the first three episodes eventually dropped it. I'm not sure that a two-hour premiere would have helped over the long run.

[Eyphur]

I don't know that it would have helped the show, maybe, maybe not; but I would have loved an extra hour of Jimmy.

[hoosier]

You would like to think that it might of made some difference but ,like Anna said, the ratings continued to drop--though not as badly as some shows that are still on the air.

You would have had the Jim and Terry issue come full circle in one story. They could still have had Jim working on coming to terms with his lingering feelings towards Terry, feelings that wouldn't begin to be resolved without Galloway's help. You know Jim wasn't totally done with Terry regardless of what he said. They would have to have done some creative editing however since Galloway appeared for the first time in FFU.

The issue of the gun, I felt, was played up wwaaayyy too much and for too long. They needed to act on it within the first few eps, not left it until the end. That alone turned several people off. Several potential story lines could have been developed on how Jim and the squad coped with his being unarmed.

I don't think it would have hurt the series. For me the strongest episodes were the pilot, UOTR, Marlon's Brando and Doggone.
The focus of all four was on Jim, highlighting what it took for him to do his job and the toll the job had on his personal well-being. This was the strength of the show, in my humble opinion, a strength they often failed to exploit fully.

[mlm828]

Based on what RE told Longlashes, it seems unlikely a two-hour first episode would have changed the show's fate, since that apparently was determined by economics, not ratings.

There has been some discussion here about the likelihood that the first session with Galloway and possibly the Christie-leaving scenario, which ultimately were part of the second episode, were originally part of the Pilot. However, I don't think adding those parts would have improved the Pilot. The Pilot is very tightly plotted, and sets up the characters and the situation very well. I'm not sure that this could have been done any better in two hours.

[maggiethecat]

inuvik said:

Something Maggie said a while ago popped into my head recently and I've been turning it over.

Wow! Thanks. BTW, I messed up the quote boxes so I'm putting Inuvik in black and me in red.

She once said somewhere that Pilot and Up on the Roof were really two halves of the same story, and I basically agree. This got me thinking. You know how many TV series now premiere with a 2 hour format, either a 2 hour movie or simply 2 episodes tacked together? What if BJ had done this with these 2 episodes? Would it have helped or hindered?

There's been a lot of terrific discussion in this thread today, but I can only wrap my brain around one post at a time . . . so, inuvik, you win the toss.

I think it would have hindered the series had they been run as one, since for me (at least) part of the tension in the first three episodes was knowing -- from The Pilot -- that Dunbar had not come to terms with Terry or what happened at the bank. And I did wonder if he ever would, or even be given the opportunity, which is why I so loved it in week four when Terry showed up again.

Absolutely, The Pilot and UOTR are the two episodes that explore the the complex relationship between Jim and Terry. But, had UOTR immediately followed The Pilot, or been run together as a two-hour show, I don't believe it would have worked as well for these reasons:

1. Would Jim have had the same kind of relationship he had with Karen? Would she have let him play out his hunch, driven him to Terry's (even though she thought he "had it in for the guy), or gone back to the roof with him so early in their relationship? I don't think so.

2. Consider the way Jim deals with Terry in The Pilot as opposed to the way he deals with him in UOTR. (God, I love talking about these two episodes -- karma to you, inuvik!) By the time we get to UOTR, Jim has learned, albeit grudgingly, that he had to deal with people in a way he never had to before. Oh, he still brushes Terry off ("Let's just work the case."), but he works him, wheedling information out of him at the hospital instead of just getting in his face a la The Old Dunbar. He's learned to listen, and that makes a difference in the way he deals with Terry. By the time we get to the river I think it's clear that Jim understands Terry -- in The Pilot I don't think he was interested in even trying to understand him.

3. Would Fisk have just backed off after "Anything to share, Jim?" had UOTR immediately followed The Pilot? Don't think so. By the time we get to UOTR Jim has solved three thorny cases, and Fisk has learned that it's not the worst idea to let Dunbar follow his instincts.

I'll think of more ("Believe it.") but that's enough for now.

[bjobsessed]

Besides all that Maggie said, I don't think it would have been as believable for me if Jim had worked through all that in two hours. That's just too fast. I know it's tv, but Jim's struggle and his anger were very real to me and I think it would have lost something if it had been solved in a two hour span.

[inuvik]

mlm828 said:

Based on what RE told Longlashes, it seems unlikely a two-hour first episode would have changed the show's fate, since that apparently was determined by economics, not ratings.

Yes, I know that keeps coming up in discussions--but if the show had been a huge hit, it would have been worth it to keep it on. The advertising revenues could have been more than whatever they were paying for the show. I think if this had had ratings like "Lost", for example, we would still be watching it.

[hoosier]

inuvik said:

mlm828 said:

Based on what RE told Longlashes, it seems unlikely a two-hour first episode would have changed the show's fate, since that apparently was determined by economics, not ratings.

Yes, I know that keeps coming up in discussions--but if the show had been a huge hit, it would have been worth it to keep it on. The advertising revenues could have been more than whatever they were paying for the show. I think if this had had ratings like "Lost", for example, we would still be watching it.

Since it seems that BJ was his pet project ,wouldn't Bochco have tried to do more to save it such as trying to cut production costs etc. so it would have been more palatable to ABC or any network to have kept it on? I mean, look at war movies--the same jeep gets blown up over and over and over again! That and concentrated on the writers who seemed to follow the 'vision' he had for the show so the quality of the stories were more consistent.

[maggiethecat]

hoosier said:

Since it seems that BJ was his pet project ,wouldn't Bochco have tried to do more to save it such as trying to cut production costs etc. so it would have been more palatable to ABC or any network to have kept it on? . . . That and concentrated on the writers who seemed to follow the 'vision' he had for the show so the quality of the stories were more consistent.

There are several ways to cut production costs: cast, production values, and staff (writers, directiors, etc.)

Start with the cast: This was an experienced cast with TV credits galore and, in RE's case, movie and stage credits. You could lower your costs by writing out some of the more expensive cast members, but would you want to? Of course not, and the main players clearly had season contracts. Or you go for cheaper writers, but Bochco is all about the writing. (I really don't know what you mean by writers who were closer to SB's vision, by the way, as Matt Olmstead and Nicolas Wootten, who wrote the Pilot, wrote episodes throughout the show.) Or you change the look of the show, and BJ was a very expensive show to produce because of the editing and the two teams of cinematographers, which gave it a "look" closer to feature films than television.

But if you change everything I've just mentioned to lower costs, do you have anything resembling the same show? No, and so what would be the point?

There's something else in the mix here: As has been reported, ABC only bought Blind Justice as a quid pro quo for Bochco giving them one last season of NYPD Blue, which he didn't want to do. From everything we've heard, it was a close-ended deal from the beginning. If the ratings didn't make a difference in ABC's decision to cancel the show, then I doubt lowering production costs would have either. ABC ran a very expensive and beautifully-produced show they didn't much like because of their longstanding realtionship with Steven Bochco. And Steven Bochco got to do Blind Justice the way he wanted to.

I think it was a done deal from the beginning and, as much as I wanted more, the thought of a low-budget cable version of Blind Justice is not terribly appealing.

[mlm828]

inuvik said:

Something Maggie said a while ago popped into my head recently and I've been turning it over.

She once said somewhere that Pilot and Up on the Roof were really two halves of the same story, and I basically agree.

I also agree that the Pilot and "Up on the Roof" were two halves of the same story, but not one that was intended to be a 2-hour episode. Nor do I think the two episodes together would have worked as a 2-hour episode.

The Pilot gave the essential background for "Up on the Roof" -- what really happened at the bank and Jim's continuing estrangement from Terry. But I don't think the events of "Up on the Roof" could have happened at the time of or just after the events of the Pilot. This is because Jim's relationships with Karen and Dr. Galloway are not sufficiently developed at the time of the Pilot -- in fact, Jim hasn't even met Galloway at that time. And both of these characters have roles that are absolutely essential to "Up on the Roof." I don't think Karen would have had enough trust in Jim at the time of the Pilot to go along with Jim's handling of the situation in "Up on the Roof." And I don't think Jim would have spoken to Galloway so frankly about his belief that Terry shot himself, if that conversation had occurred during their first session.

So, yes, they are two halves of the same story, but separate in time.

[bluedelft]

mlm828 said:

I also agree that the Pilot and "Up on the Roof" were two halves of the same story, but not one that was intended to be a 2-hour episode. Nor do I think the two episodes together would have worked as a 2-hour episode.

So, yes, they are two halves of the same story, but separate in time.

At one point fans were questioning if the episodes were being shown in the order that they were filmed and Frank Grillo commented that the order was correct. With that comment it would seem to me like those two episodes were never meant to be a two hour episode.

One "completes" the other but they are two seperate episodes and there are two totally different stories that are happening in the episodes.

Anna brings up a good point with the ratings dropping each week. I'd have to go in search of but I recall only one week where the ratings went up just a little bit and the next week they had dropped below what they had been two weeks previous.

[hoosier]

maggiethecat said:

Or you go for cheaper writers, but Bochco is all about the writing. (I really don't know what you mean by writers who were closer to SB's vision, by the way, as Matt Olmstead and Nicolas Wootten, who wrote the Pilot, wrote episodes throughout the show.) Or you change the look of the show, and BJ was a very expensive show to produce because of the editing and the two teams of cinematographers, which gave it a "look" closer to feature films than television.
quote]

What I meant was, I assumed that Bochco had some overall vision of how he wanted the show to be--the "big picture" so to speak--the characters, their interaction, where it was headed etc. Since capturing and retaining an audience is so difficult these days, what with all the options available to the viewer, wouldn't you hire writers that helped you to reach that goal? Set some basic standard that you want to achieve for each and every episode? I know that that is an impossible goal since every writer has their own individual style but you have to agree that the quality of some episodes was....lacking. Still good ,and there is no way I would want to have missed any of them, but they didn't have quite the same punch as the better ones.

No way would I have wanted the show to have changed! Not one iota.

I also remember seeing RE giving an interview where he said he knew "how it ended"--another case that that was all there was to be.

Hope I made so sense. My brain is muddled from a very intense planning committee meeting today!

[Deleted]

hoosier said:

I also remember seeing RE giving an interview where he said he knew "how it ended"--another case that that was all there was to be.

Which was what Ron told Longlashes and I in June.

[carl1951]

and don't forget. the critics were relentless. Not one good word said. It never was advertised.

There was a prejudice against the show from the Get-go.

But it did bring a good group together.

Later. Carl