Den of Geek

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed

Stuart Turton


The fans write letters, flood forums and march on studios, while the execs peer out of their windows and wonder where all these people were on Friday nights

Sarah Connor fan Stuart looks at the cancellation of the show, why it happened, and if the Terminator name proved to be a hindrance...

Published on May 21, 2009

The news that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles has been axed is about as shocking as finding blood on a slaughterhouse floor. The ratings were poor, and only got worse and when fans finally get done bombarding the Fox offices with ball bearings, or whatever other doomed scheme they come up with to keep the series going, the finger pointing will undoubtedly begin.

I always look forward to this stage. The fans write letters, flood forums and march on studios, while the execs peer out of their windows and wonder where all these people were on Friday nights. In the case of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the apologists and accusers will both have a case.

I'd be interested in seeing how many hardcore fans the series picked up over the course of its run, because I suspect the majority caught the first episode, loved it and stuck around. If you caught it midway through and still managed to fall in love with it, then God bless you, because at that point the series really didn't give a damn about you. Three episodes in and it was immediately obvious that Terminator had lived up to its name by infiltrating a network on which it quite clearly didn't belong.

Sarah Connor was a non-populist, meditative, complex piece of television on a smash-bang, show-me-the-ratings kind of network. The two were never going to get on, but kudos to Fox for giving it two seasons to prove itself, especially when it was obvious after the first, unsuccessful season, that showrunner Josh Friedman had no intentions of changing the formula.

He and his writers set out to tell a terribly complex story with a clearly defined beginning, middle and end. That's commendable but it means anybody joining after the first episode would soon find themselves choking on loose plot threads and crushed beneath snowdrift-heavy relationships. This is something that needs to be managed. Terminator never bothered. Beyond a terse "last time on..." message there were no concessions made to ease in newbies, and absolutely no attempt to appease disgruntled existing viewers. Throughout, Friedman showed a ruthless, single-minded devotion to his story worthy of the show's gleaming antagonists. This works if, like Lost, you pick up 16 million viewers off the bat or, like Battlestar Galactica, you fool your audience for an entire series into believing it's actually a shooty, space opera, rather than a talky, submarine series that just happens to be set in space.

But surely the Terminator name alone should have been worth 16 million regular viewers? Possibly, but somehow, it always seemed more hindrance than aid. The name brought a budget, but it also brought expectation. The Terminator franchise suggests explosions, robot fights and balls-out, backs against the wall carnage. The series offered these things grudgingly, and quite often as the culmination of five episodes worth of navel gazing. God, Terminator loved a bit of navel gazing. This is not a criticism, though it was for those millions who stopped watching. Personally, I thought it was superb. Wrapped in a tight script full of brilliant lines and observation, top heavy with philosophical ponderings that were wonderfully acted by a group that will walk away from this train wreck with a great deal of pride.

The name also did it a disservice in that this was never Sarah Connor's story, at least not for me. The series shone brightest when a light was trained on John Connor's transformation from whiny teen to reluctant leader. It was in relation to John that the other characters made sense. Despite the title, Sarah Connor doesn't really deserve chronicling - she isn't that interesting a character. Obsessed people very rarely are, especially when the cause of that obsession has been explained. Sarah's obsessed with protecting her son, because he's going to save the world. This means that her attitude to everybody is always exactly the same: aggressive, surly and suspicious. She doesn't change. It's her moulding of her son that strikes a note. Her attempts to protect him increasingly push him away, turning him into the man he needs to become, even as she's trying to connect. It was this journey that was at the centre of the series - watching John grow into the role he didn't want. Watching how the other characters shaped him, and he them. Watching a mythology being spun.

This rule holds throughout the cast. Cameron was a wonderful character, creepy and cute, forever at odds with her own nature. It was, however, her knowledge of present and future John that made her special. When she observed that future John would not have done what present John just had, it was never entirely clear whether she was praising or rebuking. What was her relationship to her, why had he sent her back, what's between them, was John actually having sex with a robot?

These are among the dozens of question I still want answered, and yet I won't mourn the passing of The Sarah Connor Chronicles. It was brilliant, but wilfully impenetrable. Extremely clever, but remarkably dumb in its treatment of its audience. Terminator without all the bits that most people love Terminator for. Josh Friedman reckons it will still be remembered in ten years time. I don't doubt it, I'm just not sure what it will be remembered for.

See also:
Our review of the final episode;
10 badass movie gals;
Sarah Connor Chronicles axed, creator says farewell

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By ruinawish 1 May 21, 2009 10:45:38 AM

I never gave this show a chance at all. They lost me when they made Sarah Connor a pretty face, rather than a tough-as-nails woman like Linda Hamilton.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By imback 1 May 21, 2009 11:01:30 AM

It'll be remembered for a great cast, interesting characters and writing that could go from inspired to terrible within 30 seconds -- the final "I love you John" was icky beyond belief. It'll be remembered as a show that miscast Summer Glau (who is an otherwise fine actress) as an emotionless robot. It'll be remembered as the ambitious series that could have been but never was. This was a show that was conceptually flawed and should have simply been titled "The Conner Chronicles" from the outset. If I were Josh Friedman, I be angling for a one of special when Salvation is released. For all the shows faults, regular viewers grew to love the characters and we'd like to see more, if only for some closure.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By ants97 1 May 21, 2009 12:14:42 PM

to reply to the the 1st comment he obviously never saw the episode were sarah bit through her own wrist to get out of handcuffs.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 21, 2009 01:06:34 PM

Where it went wrong... 1. Wrong network... 2. Wrong slot, friday night is never going to be a good slot big audiences on a major network for this kind of telly. 3. They should have put more action into the 1st few episodes, and slowly weaned us off it. It was always going to be a gamble to turn Terminator into a TV show, as the franchise is basically nothing more than an action packed chase. Turning that into a telly show would cost billions and probably be boring as sin. Its a shame the show wasn't on SciFi or HBO where it would have been given an audience more willing to give the show time to develop. Also a Friday night is really the wrong time for a show like this.... the vast majority of its fan base are going to be out.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By rex1one 1 May 21, 2009 01:12:21 PM

"I always look forward to this stage. The fans write letters, flood forums and march on studios, while the execs peer out of their windows and wonder where all these people were on Friday nights. In the case of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the apologists and accusers will both have a case." -Most people into the SciFi genre are also current on tech. On Friday nights the Tivo's and DVRs are catching their shows (as are mine). It's my understanding that networks refuse to count what the DVR's are recording, is that right? I know for a fact that every show I love on Friday nights ends up on the chopping block and since I'm never home to watch them in person... Well, you get the idea.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By RandyTheFool 1 May 21, 2009 01:38:11 PM

"The fans write letters, flood forums and march on studios, while the execs peer out of their windows and wonder where all these people were on Friday nights." Sorry Fox, but when you make me choose between sitting at home in the evenings to watch a rather hum-ho show (at times) or canceling it because I was out living my life... well, it's going to be the latter. How can they expect people to simply drop everything they have going on in order to support their show? I buy the dvd's/blu ray's when I can. Of course, that kind of support becomes too little, too late. Let's face it, Fox simply hates good Science Fiction for the most part. End of story. They keep shows like these around for a couple seasons, then they give them the axe. I expect Fringe and Dollhouse will be gone here in the next couple of seasons. I think the only reason they bother creating Sci-fi shows is to make people think they have a little diversity in their crime/medical/reality show line up. But, in the end, they don't pay enough attention to these shows, let them slip in the writing department, put them in piss-poor time slots and then get rid of them when "nobody is watching anymore". Come on Fox, people want a good story. I'm sure if you actually tried pushing a sci-fi show as hard as you push American Idol, for example, you would see the return of a golden age much like the one you had when The X-Files were on.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By nickcoulter 1 May 21, 2009 03:37:43 PM

Also must agree with #3 - Lena Headey was not just a "pretty face". Undeniably a beautiful woman she played Sarah Connor with a real steel but also rather more complexity than Linda Hamilton. Which as another commentator said was part of the problem - the movie franchise, great as it is, is not deep. The TV show aspired to much richer relationships and themes, developed over a much longer time. In my opinion it succeeded but it may not have matched up to expectaions from the Terminator name.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By bradyk 1 May 21, 2009 04:23:13 PM

I agree with some of your praises for the show, but I totally disagree when it comes to the treatment of the audience. Treating your audience like they can follow plotlines and are moderately intelligent is something we need more of. As for the "impenetrable" nature of the show... well, I think that only made it better. It's interesting that you post this, because I had alot of similar thoughts after the season (now series) finale, and turned into a praise of the show with a plea to FOX: http://www.kyle-brady.com/2009/04/13/terminator-sarah-connor-chronicles-finale-thoughts/ --Kyle

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 21, 2009 04:26:31 PM

The show needed to be more than movies or it would have sucked. If it had tried to do the same type of thing it would have boring as hell. It went for a deep complex story and to really develop characters, yeah there was a fair bit of navel gazing but I for one loved that about the show. Primarily I think the show was on the wrong network, Fox just doesn't seem to get this type of show, it doesn't understand how or when to schedule it. It doesn't know how too attract an audience for it or how to keep it. Secondly and more surprisingly was the fact that it was given a friday night air time(I know thats scheduling), it doesn't seem to realise that at that time the key demographic for a show like this, the audience that will take it from being just another scifi show into something major (like heroes or lost). To get the figures they want they have to attract those people who "don't like scifi", in order to do that they have to put the show on when its convenient for them to watch or they simply aren't going to bother. They needed to get these people hooked as well as the scifi nerds who where always going to watch. I really think that if the Scifi channel or HBO had made this and shown it that we would be eagerly awaiting season 3 now. The show itself was good enough, it just didn't get seen by the people wanted to see it.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 21, 2009 04:29:15 PM

*DOH* "the audience that will take it from being just another scifi show into something major (like heroes or lost)*." *has better things to do on a friday than stay in and watch telly, they simply aren't going to stay in and watch!

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By erexx 1 May 21, 2009 05:00:46 PM

Stuart is very bitter. At least BSG finished. Hey! Don't you believe in Angels? -cough *poof*

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By osbalde 1 May 21, 2009 06:42:21 PM

Frankly I think the trick to watch this show was Tivo. You needed a Tivo show you could rewind or review old shows. I loved this show, and I'm very sad this show is disappearing. It doesn't surprise me though, I'm pretty much confined to the conclussion Fox hates SciFi. I'm scared for Fringe and even Dollhouse. I loved the direction this story was taking, That where was a group of Terminators willing to ally with humans against "Skynet" I love the philosophical discussions of teaching a robot to understand morality. And as time progress you began to wonder if Conor was always on the right best for humanity, or just the fated course he was destined for. Sigh, you will be missed.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By TheRahman 1 May 21, 2009 09:05:49 PM

Come on ! What was so clever about SCC ? 6th form philosophy about the meaning of life, God, and AI. It failed because there was NO LOVE. The 1st Terminator film, was basically a love story between Sarah, and Kyle, and T2, was basically a story about the love of John for Arnold's terminator, and the effect it had on his mother. T3 failed there, as did Sarah Connor.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 21, 2009 10:03:31 PM

So it was dumb, but lacked a good love story...

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By LanieGrace 1 May 21, 2009 10:58:55 PM

What killed this show was Josh Friedman and the complete violation of everything Terminator. By time TSCC mercifully died, it had become an AI vs AI battle with the Connors as incompetent supporting actors. It was JH/Weaverbot vs Skynet! TSCC had turned the ultimate killing machines into stupid weak robots that could be taken down by a 12 guage! Terminators were no longer kickass or feard. If they had spent more time actually battling Skynet than planning for it maybe it would have survived. ~Lanie~

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By zebort 1 May 22, 2009 12:14:55 AM

The show was interesting, but it never brought anything new to the series or to television. I never understood why the characters in this series are constantly trying to change the future, but never seem to realize that the future is not changing. It would have been nice if that would have been addressed somehow. Maybe these terminators are from multiple universes and crossing time-lines. This show did not fit in with what was going on with all of the movies and I agree with everyone else, it is nothing about Sarah. Again, there needs to be some affect on the future, because of the things that had happened in the first movie. Otherwise, it's just another video game.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By bebenecio 1 May 22, 2009 04:39:19 AM

This show failed for the same reasons that a movie like The Hulk failed. And that is because in today's age, the people running the small screen and the big screen, want to captivate as many people as possible with a few special efects and not make people have to think. Would it be so hard for people to see how caracters have depth and feelings, instead of just being two-dimensional. I personally loved the show because it maintained its focus on the characters. The violence/action wasn't random, it was just another wham, bam, thank you maam kinda show. Unfortunately, though, we the audience have become used to being spoon fed all the story plot and character details. If we are challenged to think and have an original opinion, it just hurts our heads. I would really like to see this program continued to at least have a decent ending, one dignified of a decent series.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By geekygirlUK 1 May 22, 2009 02:10:41 PM

I reckon it failed because it was on LOLFOX - We're in ur TV cancelng ur showz! I agree with bebenecio that it was character lead and expected people to be able to keep up with complex interwoven storylines. I know that this is a criticism often given, but it required people to think about some fairly complex issues which most people don't really want to do when they think they're watching escapist TV. The characterisation was great, the acting was superb - particularly Summer Glau, (she needs to do some standard stuff now to avoid getting typecast)and I looked forward to it every week. I was gutted when I knew it was over. The third series could have been excellent.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By MarvMarble 1 May 22, 2009 04:06:57 PM

"By time TSCC mercifully died, it had become an AI vs AI battle with the Connors as incompetent supporting actors. It was JH/Weaverbot vs Skynet!" I liked the fact we have some ambiguity. That machine doesn't necesarily mean 'evil menace'. And that the machines themselves can break their programming and come to a different conclusion. I like the films, but I don't just want more of the same. "TSCC had turned the ultimate killing machines into stupid weak robots that could be taken down by a 12 guage!" 12 gauge with armour piercing slugs. I know what you mean though. I thought the machines were sometimes defeated too easily too. I largely bought it though. They've got access to ammo they didn't in the films, and they remove the chips after stunning the bots. Makes sense. I largely liked the programme. It was sometimes a bit slow going (and some of the intros in the first series came across a bit pretentious) but it was thoughtfull and intriguing, and ended where it was really starting to take off.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By MarvMarble 1 May 22, 2009 04:22:51 PM

"I never understood why the characters in this series are constantly trying to change the future, but never seem to realize that the future is not changing. It would have been nice if that would have been addressed somehow. Maybe these terminators are from multiple universes and crossing time-lines." It was addressed in the second series, particularly the interraction between Derek Reese and his girlfriend (they're from slightly different futures.) In short the future is changing according to their actions, just not enough to prevent Judgement Day. Yet.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 22, 2009 06:04:09 PM

"I know that this is a criticism often given, but it required people to think about some fairly complex issues which most people don't really want to do when they think they're watching escapist TV." Then how do Lost and Heroes maintain their audience? I am just waiting for some Uni to start degree courses in Lostology, the plot is bizarre and complex yet it has a huge following. Admittedly Heroes has lost its way but the 1st season required following half a dozen different stories and piecing together a whole host of clues. What these shows have is a decent time slot that attracts the right audience and they create water cooler buzz... I work traveling from office to office fixing PCs and no matter what office I walk into Heroes and Lost are a safe bet for a conversation. If T:SCC had been given a Mon or Tue slot I am sure it would have picked up the buzz needed to give Fox the 10+million audience that they wanted. Putting it on a friday night and hoping that the terminator name would be enough to keep people in and watching was barking. Put crap like america has morons on on a friday night because its target audience isn't going to be out....

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cenobite 1 May 22, 2009 06:22:04 PM

I think you make some good points. However, it seems that you're caught in limbo on how to critique the show: wavering from praises, oh-I'm-a-critic snobbery, and, finally, indifference. Figure out where you stand.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cenobite 1 May 22, 2009 06:23:38 PM

FYI, my comment was for the writer of the article, not anybody who has replied.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By benheck 1 May 23, 2009 03:18:48 PM

I am a huge fan of the Terminator series. I believe T1 is one of the best movie ever made, T2 probably one of the best sequels, and - going in with no expectations - found T3 to be a blast. That said, I tried to watch SCC starting with that after Super Bowl show and just couldn't get into it. Seemed like buttloads of Terminators, resistance members, cakes with files in them, etc were being sent back through time more often than you and I drive to the grocery store. BSG? One miniseries and I was hooked! Lost - never miss it. SCC? By episode 4 I just didn't care.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By cordas 1 May 23, 2009 09:23:32 PM

you should have stuck with it... it got a hell of a lot better the 1st series took off probably an episode or 2 after you gave up and by the 2nd series it was up there on my list with BSG as MUST see telly.

Tracy J
Posted By tracyj 1 May 30, 2009 04:19:13 PM

Funny that quite a few people seem to assume that if you didn't watch from the beginning you wont "get" this show. I started watching about half way through the 1st episode of the 2nd series - don't think I missed anything that I needed to know to understand the characters and situations for the rest of the series, I'm just sorry that I missed the earlier episodes for my own enjoyment, especially now I know there wont be any more. What a pain that some bean counting exec somewhere gets to decide what stays and what goes. We lose an interesting character study and thought provoking continuation of an iconic franchise, while lowest common denominator, bottom feeding reality TV and sickmaking teenage fodder continues to get the green light year after mind-numbing year. Seems to me that with most American shows these days the closer it seems to be to getting axed the more likely it is to be decent quality (if short lived). Back to watching out for the next show in iminent danger of being too good for its own good.

UK Connor catch-up
Posted By Geekette 1 May 31, 2009 03:47:06 AM

For those that missed this fine show's start, T:TSSC will air again from the pilot episode Tuesday, 9th June at 8pm on Bravo. I'll put another reminder in next week's Geek shows and movies on UK TV.

Re: Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles: why it failed
Posted By LDNgeezer 1 June 11, 2009 04:12:35 PM

when the series gonna start again on virgin1 in the uk
Post a Comment
 

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Broadband

Mobile Broadband

Compare over 100 mobile broadband & broadband deals online!

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!