In This Race, There’s No Time for Even a Moment’s Hesitation

In Hollywood, it’s often not enough for you to succeed. Frequently, television executives find themselves rooting for someone else to fail--especially if that someone is airing a show they helped originate.

Two of this fall’s most-ballyhooed new prime-time series--”Roswell,” a sci-fi drama that lands on the WB next month, and “Action,” a profanity-laced Fox comedy premiering Thursday--both started life at other networks. Developed for Fox, “Roswell” changed venues when the network balked at putting the program on its fall schedule. “Action,” meanwhile, was written for Home Box Office and snatched up by Fox while the pay channel and production company, Columbia TriStar Television, haggled over financial terms.

Such network-hopping has become increasingly common. Other series currently shown on a network different from where the seed was first planted include ABC’s sitcom “Two Guys and a Girl,” which Fox let go when officials decided they didn’t have a proper home for it; “The Sopranos,” revived at HBO after Fox toyed with a prototype starring Anthony LaPaglia in the central role; and “JAG,” which has blossomed into a successful CBS drama following a year airing on NBC.

The best example, however, may be “3rd Rock From the Sun,” for which John Lithgow just picked up his third Emmy. NBC leaped at the chance to acquire the show after ABC--which first ordered it--was underwhelmed by the finished product. Though “3rd Rock” hasn’t emerged as the breakout smash it initially looked destined to become, the decision nevertheless proved an embarrassment at the time to ABC, which was desperately in need of a hit comedy.

Television insiders say network honchos--given the tenuous nature of their jobs--can ill afford to turn up their noses at a potential winner, even if that means they can’t claim full credit for shepherding the idea along.

“Timing is so important,” noted Tom Werner, a principal in the Carsey-Werner Co., which produces “3rd Rock.” “Often, a good idea doesn’t get to the public because it doesn’t fit the network’s needs. . . . In some ways, you have to get beyond the impression of it being tarnished by [starting out elsewhere].”

Executives cite various factors behind the flow of concepts from one network to another, including the mandate to cut costs and a general sense of fear pervading the industry. Frazzled studio executives who have sunk money into series feel pressure to get them on somewhere, continuing to champion projects they once might have let die.

“As things get more competitive, the pressure makes people act in ways they might not have acted before,” said Chris Albrecht, HBO’s president of original programming. “There’s such a frenzy [to sell shows] that people are sending stuff around before they finish business in one place. I saw pilots this year that were still being considered by another network.”

A subtler influence involves “vertical integration” of the entertainment industry, with networks and studios aligned under the same corporate umbrella. A case in point is 20th Century Fox Television, which produces such programs as “The Simpsons” and “Ally McBeal” for its sister Fox network.

The studio’s marching orders include providing series to Fox, just as Disney intends to supply its network, ABC, and Warner Bros. serves the WB.

Even so, 20th Century Fox TV President Sandy Grushow suggested companies also have to recognize when tangled corporate relationships result in a project being put in development at the wrong place. “Shotgun weddings between producers and networks are replacing traditional courtships,” he said. “Every now and then, you’re going to wake up the next morning and realize you’re not made for each other.”

*

Grushow’s unit has clearly been aggressive in shopping fare to other networks, including both “Roswell” and “Two Guys,” which were initiated at Fox. In the latter case, officials felt the series didn’t fit the Fox mold and allowed the producers to take the project to ABC.

Though broadcasters are ostensibly pursuing the same audience--adults 18 to 49, the key age bracket sought by advertisers--programmers also appear to harbor narrower views of what will succeed on their channels.

“What you’re seeing is specific, clearer branding: a more defined vision of what might work on a network best. And from a studio point of view, you always want an opportunity to see your producers’ vision realized, no matter where it is,” said Warner Bros. Television President Peter Roth, who--while overseeing the Fox network--cut “Two Guys” loose and gave the go-ahead to “Roswell.”

Underscoring another factor that causes shows to move around, Fox fired Roth before he could order the program, leaving that decision to his successor.

There can be advantages to having a network need to demonstrate just how badly it wants a series. With Fox hesitating about “Roswell’s” future, the WB ordered a full season’s worth of 22 episodes in advance--compared to the usual 13-installment commitment--and gave the series an attractive time slot.

Jason Katims, the creator of “Roswell,” was on vacation when he got the news.

“I went to sleep Thursday night thinking the show was going to be a midseason replacement or dead [at Fox],” he said. “By midnight Friday, it was on the WB in the fall, after ‘Dawson’s Creek.’ ”

David Nutter, one of the executive producers of “Roswell,” added that he prefers dealing with a network that “got” what the program was about. “A lot of times you sell the show and they say, ‘OK, you’ve got to change this, and get rid of this actor.’ [The WB] didn’t do that at all,” he said.

Still, Werner pointed out that series prototypes are a work in progress and can often benefit from a little creative tinkering--all the more reason for networks to stick with them.

“When I was at ABC, we actually shot three different pilots for ‘Three’s Company,’ ” he recalled of the long-running comedy, noting that co-stars Suzanne Somers and Joyce DeWitt weren’t in the original version. “There was sort of a belief that this was a good project, and we were going to keep developing it until we got it right.”

Having once run the Fox network himself, Grushow conceded that programmers face a risk when they let a property go to a rival. Indeed, “Roswell” figures to compete directly with the new Fox drama “Get Real” for teen and young adult viewers on Wednesday nights, which should provide a little extra rooting interest in that matchup.

“That’s why the decision has to be made at the highest levels of the company,” Grushow said. “If it were up to network presidents, trust me, shows wouldn’t move.”