NBC's 'Kings' dethroned in ratings

"Sir, I'm sorry. It's a 1.6 in the demo."

NBC's "Kings" had a devastating premiere Sunday night.

Despite generally positive reviews, with some calling the project the most original new drama of the season, "Kings" (6 million viewers, 1.6 preliminary adults 18-49 rating and 4 share) was the lowest-rated program between 8 and 11 p.m. on a major broadcast network. Its two-hour debut was on par with this season's other bottom-of-the-barrel premieres, like last week's reality show "Chopping Block" and former Friday night adventure "Crusoe."

Nobody expected "Kings," an allegorical story retelling "King David" in modern times (clips below), to break from the gate as a major hit -- especially after the network moved the show from its originally planned slot of Thursdays at 10 p.m. to Sundays at 8 p.m. But neither did observers expect a fully budgeted scripted drama with a standard marketing push to open to this modest a number. One would think viewers would at least be curious.

"Kings" also didn't much help NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice" (6.7 million, 2.7/7) at 10 p.m., though that was to be expected. "Kings" is an ambitious sci-fi allegory drama, and "Apprentice" is celeb-reality -- the audiences flow together like "South Park" and the "700 Club."

ABC won the night with "Desperate Housewives" (14.4 million, 5.0/12) and "Brothers & Sisters" (10.6 million, 3.7/9), both up several notches from last week, along with "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" (9.4 million, 3.0/8). CBS was second with on par editions of "The Amazing Race" (10.4 million, 3.0/8), "Cold Case" (12.9 million, 2.9/7) and "The Unit" (10.9 million, 2.7/7). Fox placed third with "The Simpsons" (6 million, 2.8/8), "King of the Hill" (5.4 million, 2.4/6), "Family Guy" (7.2 million, 3.6/9) and "American Dad" (5.8 million, 2.9/7).

PREVIOUS:

NBC's 'Kings' script: bold, bizarre, fun

PREVIOUS:

NBC's summer schedule revealed: 'Philanthropist,' 'Merlin,' 'Celebrity,' Conan and more

If you missed the premiere, here's two clips that recap the entire episode:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Comments

[Brian M]

Proving once again that the network-watching audiences want crap and not good drama. This should have gone to cable - Showtime or HBO - and it would be a hit. What a shame.

[Pop Culture Curmudgeon]

I enjoyed the show quite a bit. I think it' unfortunate that it was such a bust in the ratings. Perhaps the good feedback will get people to watch the debut online and check it out live next week.

I also wonder if the problem is less with the general viewing public and more with the Nielsen ratings system. Who are these Nielsen families? And why do they only watch shows I hate?

[Frank Caruso]

I agree with the previous comment. This should have been on NBC's USA Network. USA needs to look at both FX and TNT to restructure their network. It's a shame what had happened to their Bravo Network. Why don't they just call it "The No-Brainer Reality Network". Something that NBC will turn into shortly, "The NO-BRAINER CONTENT NETWORK".

[Derekh Froude]

There's nothing Sci-Fi about this show. Don't call it that.

[forrester]

Darn it. I was intrigued by the commercials, but I totally forgot to watch. NBC has lousy marketing. That's their main problem I think... not the shows but the way they promote them. Take Chuck for example. It's a pleasant quality show. Why it struggles in the ratings is purely the fault of NBC and the way it advertises the show.

[Griffin]

I thought the show was very well done and entertaining. I was concerned that Ian McShane was going to take a turn as a "good guy", and after seeing the first episode I am glad to see otherwise. I really hope this gets a chance to develop long term, but have full faith in NBC to pull it early.

[Brandon]

It's NBC's fault--a good show debuts in the FALL. We all know that. I'm not about to tune into a new show in the spring because of the network REALLY thought it was good it would have aired in the fall, or if not ready, would have been kept until next fall! This would have probably looked good on a fall schedule!!

[Alan M.]

I agree. Boston Legal said it in one of their final episodes, people nowadays want to watch brain fryingly dumb shows. Anything with smart, intriguing storytelling that really challenges the viewer is canceled. I just glad that Brothers and Sisters is doing well, because it is a great show with a great story and quite a talented cast.

[ducdebrabant]

I give it some credit for originality, and I congratulate the network on risking it, but let's not be silly. It's not that good. It's the biblical story with a pretty by-the-numbers hackwritten script. The Prophet Samuel is "The Reverend Samuels." Goliath is a tank with a procedural vulnerability. Uh huh. Anybody can write that sort of thing.

And the tone of it is pretty familiar too, and not in a good way. The farmboy experiencing the lavish "court" life is a lot like "Dirty Sexy Money" or "Gossip Girls" or any number of other let's-spy-on-the-rich-and-powerful shows. The black sheep prince may come from the Bible, but you can see a better black sheep prince on both those shows.

It also reminds us, with the modern dress trappings but modernistic comic-opera uniforms and flags, of the apocalyptic "left behind" movies with corporate antichrists and world government and skimped-on battle scenes (the "front" is four tanks, one trench, and two tents).

McShane is great, but he was a lot better on "Deadwood" in a better written part. Egan is good but I have a feeling he got the part because he could play the piano.

And in these times, does anybody look at a trailer in which America has a king and not think it's hooey? Just from the trailer it looks like a cautionary tale about our slippery slope to ....... monarchy. Is this a burning issue? And how can Dylan Baker's megacorporation withdrawing all its gold from "Gilboa"'s banks compare for drama with the meltdown we're already in?

Finally, a lot of people will view it as thinly-disguised, candy-coated Christianist propaganda. The fact that the weak and scheming heir to the throne is a secret homosexual doesn't help dispel that impression any.

If I want to read Samuel and First and Second Kings, I'll read them. That's quality stuff, not network hackwork. The show did maker me want to do that, if that helps, but it's a small victory (even if it might be enough of one to satisfy the producer's hidden agenda).

I didn't hate this (and Egan's battlefield speech was really quite moving), but nobody needs to feel guilty for giving it a miss. It's not must-see TV.

[Watterton]

Amongst all the recent and upcoming drama pilots and screenplays I've seen and read in the past months, all these run of the mill crime and law and medical procedurals only marginally variegating the standardized formula of network television - Kings really is a gleam of hope. A rare gem that from casting to writing well and truly feels like it's predestined for HBO.

I really hope it will last at least one season.

[steve]

I loved this show. ducdebrabant who thought it was crap forgot he was watching TV. Of course the front is two tanks and a trench. It's called a Set. Like Friends coffee bar was a couch and two chairs.
And - the battlefield speech was moving- the King's lines are all moving- and the deception is so well done, with a press core ready to believe anything- that it sort of makes you ill for what's really happening in America. This show isn't thinkly disgused Chritian propaganda- it's thinly disguised world government 101. ps the scene at the end with the butterflies remind med of something out of a shakespeare play- plays that were also making a statement about the government at the time.

[Russ]

Its no "Rome" but its better than just about anything else on network TV.

[dash]

Just curious, how badly must you run a network into the ground before you get fired??

I'm looking at you Ben Silverman & Jeff Zucker.

NBC is a shell of its former self and it makes me sad. Bob Wright should fire those two and start over with some executives that actually know how to launch a new show.

[jake]

I watched it but I think something needed to happen sooner for people to get involved in a brand new show. Maybe celebrity apprentice needs to be the lead in at 8. This is something that nbc programmers just do not understand, they need to have a lead in for their shows. They could have rejuvenated Heroes by airing it after the superbowl, now they got nothing.

[JT]

"Kings" has stunning production values - One of the best looking and sounding HD (non-sports) network TV shows yet produced.

The cast is good and good-looking.

Like the "high concept".

But the script had holes that a Hummer could slalom through.

[Nugget]

Just want to add, I'm also really intrigued by the show--thought it was well done and I'm interested to see where it goes (and love Ian McShane).
It's like, by some random piece of luck, it was greenlit even though it's not a crime/doctor/lawyer procedural--almost as if someone didn't realize what they were greenlighting (really surprised this show isn't on Showtime/HBO/FX/AMC).

However, the programming rearrangement NBC constantly does is just horrendous. How do the programmers fail to see what a crap slot they launched this in? Is it so much to give a show a real launch anymore? I guess it was screwed given the Spring premiere, but still.

[SD]

I watched. It's better than anything else they got on that crap network. At least the dialogue isn't as bad as Heroes. Southland looks bad too. Sorry but NBC is like somebody who is contagious... Nobody wants to go near them.

[macca]

I watched, in total confusion. I had no idea of the context for the show and while I appreciate good original drama, this show left me cold, despite the obvious money spent on it. What the hell was it about? King David? I'm not familiar with his story. Does one need to be have a biblically based education to understand the allegorical relevance? Frankly, I'm very suspicious of religious programing... they're almost always propaganda for the religious right.

Why didn't NBC help audiences a bit with some exposition? I agree that NBC dropped the ball on the launch. The promotional clips didn't explain, or intrigue, but I watched solely for Ian McShane. At the end of two hours, I cancelled my future DVR scheduling for Kings. I may not have understood how and why the characters got to where they were in the story, but I know pomposity when I see it.

[TV Time]

I guess no one told the current NBC how badly the Richard Gere "King David" did on the network in the 1980s.

[TV Gadfly]

NBC can blame itself for its shrinking audience. Between the superimposed clutter and a heavy commercial load it has become impossible to enjoy a drama on the network. As long as they insist on hiding the picture behind a never ending stream of garbage advertising the OTHER garbage that nobody wants to watch, then they should expect that former viewers will look elsewhere for entertainment.

[ducdebrabant]

Hey Steve, I never said it was crap. I was entertained. But there was nothing very original about it once you get past the central conceit. Yes, it's interesting to say "he'll find a structural weakness in the tank because the tank stands for the giant" but it's no more interesing than to say "okay the palace is the New York Public Library and the council chamber is one of the lower floors of the Time/Life building." Beyond that it's just a melodrama like a dozen other undistinguished shows on TV. I enjoy "Gossip Girl" when I see it, and I enjoy this just as much, but no more. I don't consider it particularly distinguished, and I suspect it was fairly easy to write.

[Ian McPain]

I didn't care for the constant overt religious themes, but overall it was pretty engaging. To me its stuck in a nasty place. Not dumb enough to be gobbled up by the masses, not smart quite smart enough and too religious for the more discerning viewers.

[Adam]

I think part of the problem here is that it's really difficult to communicate what the show is. Saying it's a "modern retelling of the story of David" gives off moralizing, religious fumes, which isn't what it is. It's not sci-fi, and it's not quite fantasy. They're relatively accurate in billing it as a Gossip Girl/Dirty Sexy Money sex/money/power soap, but I think it tried and accomplished more than that last night. It's an epic, and I'm not sure that they expressed that in the marketing.

Then they put it in a time slot where it has to earn its own audience where the marketing becomes even more important.

I hope it survives, but I also hope that it avoids sinking into too many soap opera cliches. They need to add more dimension and color to the world and the characters in future episodes and avoid letting the characters become familiar soapy stereotypes. They also need to practice restraint to keep from those soap opera cliches - the idea of a malevolent corporate power-behind-the-throne, for instance, is a little tired. Kings/mobsters/CEOs casually and effortlessly killing other characters (major and minor) off is also pretty tired.

Anyway, I'll be watching next week.

[Kevin]

Like it or loathe it, whether it was good, bad or just boring - and I offer no opinion, I TiVoed - the saddest thing about "Kings" is that a network swung for the fences with something different and no one showed up to watch.

So the lesson they and the other networks will inevitably take away is: stick with the tried and true and don't dare try anything different. So prepare for an onslaught of "Mentalist" and "Big Bang" clones.

And by the way: can we give some props to NBC for at least shooting for the moon? C'mon, admit it: Who would've thought it would be them?

[Tony]

The biggest problem with Kings is that it's on NBC. I give NBC credit for the show but it should be on at 10pm and it should have a lead in. But lets face it. If the rest of the network has low ratings how can you expect any new show to have high ratings? You need to promote a show but their isn't enough of an audience to promote it! With that being said, maybe the ratings were really not that bad considering what the rest of the network pulls in. Lets hope that it at least keeps the ratings it got and we get to see more based on the high qualtiy of the show.

[kelli]

I thought that Southland looked great. I am a big fan of cop shows and this looks like nothing I have ever seen .......... There is somthing very cool looking about the show, like "crash" meets "cops" ................. I don't know ..... it just doesn't look slick like your typical NBC show. ........ We will see.

[Greg]

I don't think this show is forcing Christianity down your throat. It's just a modern re-telling of a classic, timeless story. Does Battlestar Galactica force Mormonism on you?

[Ray]

Maybe those who were turned away in droves couldn't stand the barrage of commercials. How much actual drama happened in those two hours? I'm guessing less than an hour.

[Pete]

I thought it was great fun... better than a lot of the crap out there...and it's a story. I'm sick of reality shows (that aren't really reality). The writing is ok...not anything that will show up at Emmy time, but the actors are engaging and make it good drama. Bottom line Ian Mc Shane is amazing. I will for sure watch again.

[Amy]

Hey, ducdebrabant, if "anybody can write that sort of thing" why aren't you pulling in the big bucks writing for NBC instead of writing on this site? It's also ridiculous to say that this is Christian propaganda when one of the main characters is gay (and the King says that God made him that way) and there's a line about how evolution clearly took place.
I thought this show was new and exciting. Just because it takes inspiration from the biblical story and has religious themes doesn't mean it's a religious show in the sense that is trying to convert viewers to a certain brand of religion. Hopefully, more people will tune in and the show will get the ratings it deserves!

[matt]

Kelli Southland looks almost exactly like 3RD WATCH only its set in Cali instead of NY...it looks almost EXACTLY the same. (that should be to its credit tho as I loved 3rd Watch when it first premiered! that show was all action all the time when it first started it was awesome.)

[matt]

I don't think NBC ever really had any real confidence in KINGS anyways. March Debut AND Sunday night to boot. the only way it could have demonstrated less confidence was to air it against American Idol or throw it away on a Friday night. Actually given what I just said---there's no good night for NBC to have premiered it at all!!! Given American Idol's domination of Tuesday and Wednesday--and the fact that NBC actually has quality programming on Mondays and Thursday nights. Sundays was really the only logical night it could've afforded to premiere a big new thing.

DAMN that's just sad man. What The Hell Happened To NBC??? Why is NBC (and ABC) so darn scared of American Idol??? Would it kill you NBC to even try to program Tuesday nights again? I know you're not going to now that you actually have success with The Biggest Loser but I remember when you actually had a quality sitcom block on Tuesday nights--and it wouldn't take too much to have one again. You nearly had one 4 years ago with My Name IS Earl on Tuesday nights too boot! I mean C'mon NBC really you're embarrassing yourselves over here.

[me]

i missed the first 10 minutes, but watched the rest of the first hour. i thought it was just TOO slow...watching the prep for a party,looking for a cell phone and making breakfast took most of the hour. i won't be back.

oh, and the 'goliath' on the tank... so obvious it was pathetic.

[Gretchen]

I think the most ridiculous comments made by viewers so far are of the following general categories:

1) They didn't understand the show's "context" and that it needed more exposition because they aren't familiar with the Story of David (which is like saying they don't know who Macbeth is). They remind me of those people who said they were confused by the 1st hour of the Fellowship of the Ring.

2) The show is religious propaganda due to its adaptation of a biblical story that "gives off moralizing religious fumes." Have they read the Old Testament? It's easily like the most morally ambiguous stuff ever written.

[JimK]

I must admit that I think that this was a case of launch failure. Due to the lackluster previews and buzz, I watched the show reluctantly with my wife. Turns out, I'm the target market for the show! I'm a person who likes good, interesting drama, as well as someone who's revels in alternate reality story lines.

We sat down with the DVR last night and were very happy with what we saw. My wife did ask, "is this a post-apocalyptic world?" and said that it was "kinda slow." But other than that, we both were very happy.

I'm just hoping that we don't end up with a Firefly type situation here - where the execs basically fumble it so badly that the series fails.

Let's just hope that they air the pilot again to try and hook more people. I'm already enamored with the world that they've created.

[Nappi]

Maybe since they cancel so many good shows a season or a half a season after you start watching them. Making no efforts to make sure the show ends up a successful slot or good night. Why watch a show you have to follow every week, if you're likely going to end up wasting your time.

[Adam]

Gretchen wrote:

"2) The show is religious propaganda due to its adaptation of a biblical story that "gives off moralizing religious fumes." Have they read the Old Testament? It's easily like the most morally ambiguous stuff ever written."

1. When I tuned in on Sunday, the only thing I knew about the story of David was a kid with a slingshot. I didn't know until I researched it after the fact that the story of David (in particular) really was a morally ambiguous epic story of sex, wealth, power. I'm not a bible scholar or a literature major, and that's probably what most Americans knew.

2. Most retellings of Biblical stories -are- pandering, propagandizing, G-rated morality play "Veggie Tales" schlep with palpable religious fumes, regardless of what the actual literary substance was. I figure that part of the reason they lost older viewers on Sunday as the show went on is that people tuned in expecting 7th Heaven or Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea, and instead got a more secular and literary interpretation.

I didn't say it was religious propaganda - emphatically, what I saw on Sunday was a morally ambiguous epic - I just meant that one gets the impression that that's what it would end up being if what you hear from the marketing is "retelling of a Biblical story." They gave themselves a difficult marketing problem and I don't think they solved it. I really hope they give it a chance.

[Heather]

I had been waiting for it but did not even realize it had premiered. I was able to catch it through "on demand". I thought the show was amazing, not at all what I thought it would be but defiantly a show I will watch and can't wait tell next week. I am over Desperate Housewives, do not want to see Donald’s crappy hair or listen to his voice so this is a good addition.

[TrueNorthSunshine]

Overall I really enjoyed Kings - if it finds an audience it could become a phenom like Star Trek.
I also happen to like the Celebrity Apprentice...
Weird combo, I know.

[Intellectual]

This show would of been great on hbo.. But to limit it's potential on network t.v c'mon!!!!
I don't understand how producers and real artist do it .. Too bad : (