Why NBC's 'Outlaw' Was Doomed from The Start
by Allison Waldman, posted Oct 8th 2010 4:30PM
It's always sad to see a quality television show bite the dust, but that likely wasn't the case here; there were questions from the start about 'Outlaw.' Why did NBC green light this series, and choose to debut it in the fall over other pilots like 'Harry's Law' with Kathy Bates, which had Emmy-winner David E. Kelley ('Boston Legal') behind it?
Even if you got past the fact that 'Outlaw' seemed like tough sell, NBC hasn't done very much to help the show. In fact, here's the evidence that 'Outlaw' was probably a doomed project from the start.
1. 'Outlaw' had an outlandish premise.
Would a Supreme Court justice really give up the top job in the land to go back to being a defense attorney? The idea, of course, was that he was an idealist who wanted to fight for the little guy. However, Supreme Court justice is the kind of job you don't give up. It's a lifetime position from which you cannot be fired. You're one of only nine justices in America. It's as high as you can go in the judicial system.
Therefore, to give up that kind of stature, not to mention the power to interpret the Constitution, was far-fetched to say the least. Judge Cyrus Garza had to power to do more good as part of the Supreme Court than he ever would running a law firm. The creators were asking the audience to swallow a lot, to take a giant leap of faith, just by asking us to accept that premise as reality. It was too outlandish.
Clearly, 'Outlaw' was going to be a star vehicle for Jimmy Smits, as Mo Ryan pointed out in her review. However, as much as Smits is a star, he's never carried a show on his own. On 'L.A. Law,' 'The West Wing' and 'NYPD Blue,' he thrived as part of an ensemble. Even his showy turn on 'Dexter,' which earned Smits an Emmy nomination, had him supporting Michael C. Hall's Dexter Morgan character.
But 'Outlaw' was dependent on Jimmy Smits carrying the hour. Smits isn't Superman and he needed help to bring off the premise. He never really got that help. The cast was competent, if not compelling, and the plots weren't great, certainly nothing as idiosyncratic as the kind of stories Kelley told on 'Boston Legal.' It also didn't help the show when the writers threw in a conspiracy theory subplot.
3. NBC put it on Friday night.
If NBC really wanted to give 'Outlaw' a boost, why did it slot it on Friday nights? Friday is a notoriously slow night for TV viewing. And It wasn't just that it was on Friday night. 'Outlaw' had to go up against Tom Selleck's 'Blue Bloods' on CBS. That's asking audiences to choose between two veteran TV stars. If NBC had placed 'Outlaw' on Monday at 10PM instead, then it may have had an edge over shows like 'Hawaii Five-0' and 'Castle,' which feature younger -- and less familiar -- leading men.
NBC could have even tried 'Outlaw' on Thursday at 10PM instead of 'The Apprentice.' That was Jimmy's old slot when he was on 'L.A. Law.' It might have shown viewers that NBC considered 'Outlaw' a prestige project, because for nearly two decades, that time slot was an NBC success story.
4. There's was the Conan O'Brien connection.
After the hubbub with Conan O'Brien last winter/spring, which embarrassed NBC as much or more than any move Jeff Zucker ever made, it was strange that the network would green light a show from Conan's production company. Nevertheless, Conaco Productions' 'Outlaw' made it onto the NBC fall schedule.
Is it possible that NBC said yes to 'Outlaw' just for the perverse pleasure of canceling the show as soon as possible? That sounds crazy, but Hollywood has been known to do some weird things. Some theorists are implying this is NBC's revenge on Conan, that NBC planned to get back at Conan for giving them grief ever since the end of Conan's 'Tonight Show' by giving 'Outlaw' short shrift.
Have you watched 'Outlaw?' Do you think it deserves a chance or was it doomed to fail?
Comments
by Heidijoy, posted Oct 8th 2010
Oh No! I really like the show. Don't like Conan though. Really like Smits. this is the second time NBC has done this to me this year!
Reply
by scott, posted Oct 11th 2010
wah! read a book
by starwarsboi101, posted Oct 8th 2010
I only watched the first two shows I disliked it is pretty bad, Blue Bloods is a hit I love that show on CBS on Fridays at 10:00 PM-11:00 PM.
Reply
by Paul Little, posted Oct 8th 2010
The "Outlaw" pilot was awful, but I've enjoyed every episode since. But when your first episode blows, it's hard to get people to tune in again, so it's no surprise it's on its way out.
Reply
by Joyce N., posted Oct 8th 2010
I liked the show but have to admit that I was really watching because Jimmy Smits was in it. It does look bad and I hope that Smits will find a better vehicle soon.
But it wouldn't surprise if NBC did make this whole thing "retaliation".
Reply
by Tricia, posted Oct 8th 2010
I hated this show! It was basically House but in the legal system. I mean think about; a genius with an addiction who has daddy issues, with a team of three (though this one has TWO women) one of which is in love with him, and a friend who is the voice of reason. Plus the writing was horrible, at least in the pilot, I didn't watch any further. It was probably one of my least liked pilots this year, after $#*! My Dad Says of course.
Reply
by Andi, posted Oct 8th 2010
Why "The Defenders" works and "Outlaw" doesn't -- Both are shows about flawed attorneys. Both feature attorneys that have gambling problems and questionable attitudes towards women. Comparing a show that stars Jim Belushi and Jerry O'Connell against one that stars Jimmy Smits would seem to be a no-brainer. "Outlaw" will be the better show, right? Wrong -- and I think I know why.
The characters on "The Defenders" are glorified ambulance chasers. Their clients include strip clubs and their motives are often suspect. However, underneath the slick suits and slicker hair, their humanity is intact. When one of them is forced to take over a public defender's case (because he lost in a poker game), he's ready to make an appearance, take a plea deal, and get it over. However, when he actually speaks to the client and realizes he's truly not guilty, he goes to bat for the guy big time and ends up risking disbarment.
On the other hand, we have "Outlaw." Here's an attorney that leaves his post as a Supreme Court Justice, presumably because he's spurred to do so by the death of his Cesar Chavez-like father. However, it appears the real reason may have been because his enormous gambling habit and womanizing was about to become front-page news. So, he decides to become the defender of seemingly hopeless cases. Unfortunately, the enormous bets he's made on various sporting events seem to be much more important to him than any case he happens to be defending. His pretty female assistant is constantly in a state of apoplexy trying to get him to focus on the case, rather than his bets.
Reply
by Linda R Snyder, posted Oct 9th 2010
All of this would be viable if Jerry O'Connellwere not such a pathetically horrible actor. It is painful to watch him.
by Andi, posted Oct 8th 2010
Continuing my rant --
Then the former Supreme borrows a huge amount of money from his former lover/boss, under false pretenses, to place a bet. The fact that he actually wins the case is far less important to him than winning the bet -- which he does; and then promptly re-bets the entire amount. This is not a likable guy; sort of a Gregory House in the courtroom. If the writing was on the level of "House," it could work. Unfortunately, the writing is dreadful, and it's painful to watch all the really good actors trying so hard to overcome such lousy material.
So, if you find that "Outlaw" is as disappointing to you as it is to me, give "The Defenders" a try.
Reply
by Jim, posted Oct 8th 2010
GO back to reason #1. A liberal would never take small cases for peanuts when he could stay on the Supreme Court and be able to run all of our lives.
Reply
by ccalvinalso@aol.com, posted Oct 11th 2010
Once again truth in action. You , my friend, have the pulse of the TV networks, all Political.
by calcynic, posted Oct 8th 2010
Typical Friday fodder bucking up against a bonafide good cop show...never stood a chance. Maybe TBS can use it as a lead in for Conan...hah!
Reply
by bruce, posted Oct 8th 2010
It's even more basic than all of this. People want to see defendants convicted, not acquitted. No show, in today's "kill the criminals" everyone is presumed guilty America will succeed where the audience is supposed to side emotionally with the accused. They've tried shows like "In-Justice" and "Justice" in past years, and shows like Outlaw and also the new show "The Defenders" are all doomed.
Americans want to see people thrown in prison. WE FIND THE DEFENANT GUILTY! Yay for the victim! Any show where the defendant is the bad guy also implicitly has to make the prosecutors and/or cops the bad guys. Americans just can't handle that. They don't have the mental capacity for it.
The ONLY way Americans will accept a not guilty verdict in a TV show or movie is if the "real" guilty person is sitting in the courtroom and somehow either admits to the crime or is shown to have done it so we can have the "Bailiff, release the defendant at place Mr. Real Murderer under arrest" act take place. You just can't have every show end that way.
So, in modern America, where everyone is cowering at home scared of everything - especially criminals - and the nightly news reinforces those fears with 28 mintues of crime, 1 minute of sports and 1 minute of weather, anyone who greenlights a courtroom/lawyer procedural based on the defendant's point of view is grossly negligent and should be fired.
"The Defenders" will be cancelled next week, if it hasn't been already.
But I do admit, "Outlaw" had the most outrageous, insane premise even putting aside the unwatchable defendant point of view. Like Antonin Scalia quitting the supreme court to become the head of the ACLU. Religious people will become atheists en masse before such a thing would happen.
Reply
by Tobor2001, posted Oct 9th 2010
I like the show and Jimmy Smits deserves better! NBC say its not so.... you put his show on Friday....then you kill it just to get back at Conan O'Brien. Give it a better time slot and give it a chance!
Reply
by unc69dmo, posted Oct 9th 2010
If the LAME Networks, who must corral as many attention span challenged viewers as possible, to justify a show's existence....can CLUSTER**** it ....they WILL EVERYTIME !!!!!
Reply
by Zach, posted Oct 9th 2010
I don't understand how the premise is so 'outlandish'? He's a man living his own life, and for the combined reasons of his father's death, his frustration with his inability to really make a difference, and the problems in his personal life, he decides to pursue a more independent, exciting and personally satisfying path in life. Is that so hard to believe? People make that decision every day en masse. The more unbelievable thing for me is that people continue doing something that doesn't satisfy them their whole lives...and then die!
Also, this idea that the show is some fiendish left wing plot, and that he is 'fighting for the little guy', is simply incorrect. Are the people criticising this show even watching it? Oulaw is exceptional viewing in that it never takes the easy path, and never takes the simplistic 'good vs evil' point of view. Smits' character is all about the law, upholding it and interpreting it in a way that he believes is in the spirit in which the law in question was made.
This seems to have gone over the heads of many people, which is sad.
It is a complex, challenging show that is miles above the standard fare cluttering our tv screens. Isn't it obvious that real problem is the time slot? Friday nights are notoriously difficult nights in the ratings stakes. When it was on Wednesday night it had 11 million viewers. Put it back in a respectable time slot and watch the ratings soar.
Outlaw is easily one of the best legal shows of the last decade. If it allowed to mature, it could be simply anything.
Reply
by emgee, posted Oct 9th 2010
this is only the second time this has happened to me. i was never big into tv and when i watched shows it was shows like monk that were running out of steam when i got to them. when i watch a new show one of 4 things will happen it has a long successful run that i watch, it has a run that i grow to ignore as i fall out of touch with the show, it has a short run and ends as im falling or after i have fallen out of touch with it, or it has a short run that devastates me ... i hear about it alot cancelled shows that really annoy people but i had my first taste of it last year with what will forever be my favorite show: KINGS. and outlaw which forces me to sit home to catch it (i like blue bloods a but i just catch that online) it feels like a conspiracy aimed to piss me off that both these pilot seasons come from nbc .... damn it.
Reply
by TR, posted Oct 9th 2010
I've enjoyed the episodes that we've watched. Most of them recorded on the DvD however. I'll be honest, we tuned in because Smits was the lead character and we've always enjoyed his work.
The problem comes when a show is rumored to be on the chopping block from the moment it came out of the box. We were hesitant to get involved with it mainly because the rumors of cancellation were out there from the very beginning. Got burned getting involved with Smits show CANE, we loved it, but it too got canceled early in it's life.
We're tired of getting burned by the networks with their habit of canceling shows for no apparent reason just after you've fallen for the show. It's gotten very irritating.
So we tend to record a lot of shows now and play the wait and see game. Watch the shows when we have time and there is a slow period on mainstream tv but not get committed to it. Then if they are canceled it's not a big deal.
Reply
by barrycher, posted Oct 10th 2010
I can't believe this show is cancelled. As a 68 yr old retiree, I love tv with my wife. There is nothing on Saturday but sports and then Sunday opens the week with good shows which makes an organized 5 nights, but some folks are looking for a 6 or 7 nite week of tv. For the AARP generation we are looking for a good group of shows, THANK YOU DVR'S and the non-network channels. I hope and truly believe we will see it off-network shortly (ie: Friday Night Lites) did). The fact that we see a resigning Supreme Court Judge is no difference that we have 4 different SVU's or CSI's or Blood Suckers and Young people flying on brooms. Someone saw the fact that Smit's had a great interaction with the other 4 members/partner. It's a real thing; justices play poker at Vegas or wherever, online gambling: and having a bookie who takes $200,000 bets without anything but their reputation.......AMEN
by L, posted Oct 9th 2010
I love Outlaw...the only worthy program on friday evenings.....
Reply