In a story on Newsarama, Kings creator Michael Green alleges that NBC effectively kept his parallel-universe adaptation of the King David story from reaching its audience by leaving its biblical basis out of the promos:
"When the time came for the marketing, there was a very deliberate, outspoken, loud desire articulated by them that, 'We are not going to say King David.' They were scared to say King David. They just felt that that would be detrimental to the show," Green explained. "I thought it was the clearest way to express what the show was about, and I thought it might actually generate interest. But there was a fear of either backlash or marginalizing or pigeonholing. There were a lot of reasons they had. They wouldn't go near it in the marketing, but they never had a problem with it on the creative level, which is why I was so baffled."
Which explains why I was a few scenes into the first episode before I caught on that this was a scriptural adaptation. The promos basically sold it as "what if the United States were a monarchy?", which hardly does justice to the show's spiritual basis. The fruits of that misleading advertising ripened yesterday when NBC signed Kings' death warrant; it will finish its thirteen-episode run but won't get a second season.
You'd think I would love Kings—after all, it's an SF Bible adaptation starring Ian McShane!—but frankly the first few episodes left me a bit cold. I plan to watch the rest, but it has yet to completely blow my mind. Nevertheless, it has some soaring high points, particularly when King Silas Benjamin (i.e. Saul, played by the aforementioned McShane) talks about God. [For instance:]
In any event, I like it more than Cynthia B. Astle, who declared the show "a tool for fostering biblical illiteracy" in an essay for Religion Dispatches. (Not the least of its problems: the story it's adapting isn't taken from Kings at all, but Chronicles. Whoops.) Diane Winston offers a nice counterpoint in a companion article that applauding the show's transparent treatment of religion—you know, the transparency that was wholly lacking from all of the show's promos. I think there is a bigger audience for shows like this, but it seems the networks are scared to look for it.
Read the Newsarama article, which also discusses the same problem in advertising for the late Eli Stone, here.
You can watch Kings on Hulu.
It depresses me to say this, but this experiment tends to prove the wisdom of TV networks going gutless and tame all the time. Now all we have to look forward to will be more sitcoms set in living rooms.
I think there is definitely a demand for this kind of show--if it is brilliantly written. If not brilliantly written, then it will only embarrass its audience, and die. Kings was a risky move on the part of the network. I doubt they'll try such a move again anytime soon.
(Yes, this means I doubt different marketing would have saved Kings. Everything about the show was great, except the dialog: something that tends to be kinda important.)
Posted by: Fredösphere | May 21, 2009 at 01:32 PM
ARG! I *just* watched the first two pilot episodes on Hulu last night (we have no cable and spotty broadcast - have missed any promotion entirely. Only really knew about it thanks to Carmen and her blog at In The Open Space).
Was leery but intrigued. And, was looking forward to seeing how NBC developed it and where it was heading.
Guess I'll just watch the 5 episode Hulu has...
Posted by: Beth/Mom2TwoVikings | May 24, 2009 at 06:53 AM