I’ve already expressed surprise – and a tinge of sadness – that The Hollowmen is just not cutting through in the ratings. In thinking about it some more, a few things come to mind as to possible reasons.
Similar Story Arc (plot) in each show?
Government in trouble over issue. Tony has to solve it. Phillip and Warren provide the official guidelines/suggestions (usually involving a PowerPoint and a preliminary report in 6 months). Tony has to work around them without offending them. Sometimes a focus group is run. Murph thinks of clever solution. End. (I know I’m exaggerating, but you get the point)
Too Narrow Cast of Characters?
Frontline had a number of more independent lead roles, so multiple threads could be developed. HollowMen is a bit more linear. Bit hard to explain what I mean, perhaps the Suggestions bit at the end will cover it.
Little Buy-In From Viewers?
Do we just assume this sort of thing goes on anyway. I know it’s satire, but maybe it’s ‘really’ only 10% exaggerated, or perhaps the public perceive it as being very close to the truth.
Perhaps viewers are too removed. Again it’s hard not to mention Frontline. It sent-up something we see every day; current affairs. Viewers had a buy in and could relate to it. This Canberra public-service stuff may be too distant or not easy to relate to.
Suggestions
The One with Phillip and Warren. How about a show that turns things around. Spin off another thread. We focus on Phillip and Warren, with Tony etc being bit parts. We see how P&W ‘really’ work and how they relate to – and view – Tony et al. They may be just as manipulative of Tony.
The One where Things Stay Wrong. What happens when they can’t spin it. How does the gang cope? Do they turn on each other, find a scapegoat?
The One with the Documentary Crew. The ABC is making a documentary on the Department. How does Tony explain their activities to a journalist who clearly knows what is really going on. As she used to work there…
I too am vexed by “The Hollowmen”‘s lack of traction. Not that I expected it to do boffo box office – I have too many day-to-day encounters with people can’t even imagine watching anything on ABC – bu at least that it’d get a solid cult audience AND generate a bit of discussion in the media and the workplace, the way South Park used to.
I suppose the fact that the media has ignored it(after an enthusastic fanfare) or damned it with faint praise hasn’t helped.
The inane, would-be American Jim Schembri (you know, the sort od Australian who writes “go see” a movie rather than “go and see” it)dismissed TH as “Yes Minister-lite”, by which reasoning one could argue that 99% of sitcoms are direct ripoffs of something or another. Yes, of course there are some similarities, but the differences are crucial, eg the persistently out-of-frame PM, for one thing.
My pet peeve with the show (minor, and probably not THE problem) is that Sitch tends to steal too many scenes with gags which are funny but make him seem implausibly inept. A bit like my problem with “Frontline”, ie it seemed to want to show a shoddy, amateurish current affairs production, and say “unlike ACA!”. I always wish it had the balls to show that ACA was as deserving of its barbs as any other current affairs show.
As for how to “fix” the Hollowmen? Who knows, when its audience was so small to begin with? (probably the same size as the demographic for the superb “Newstopia” – me, my dog and somebody trying to record some Slovenian porn on SBS).
Which segues nicely to my suggestion – no, NOT a gratuitous sex scene, but certainly something a bit jarring to wake th audience (and Green Guide journalists) up. Your “shit hits the fan” scenario would work a treat.
As for your other ideas: I think the documentary idea could crash, alas. Sure, it’s not a doco SPOOF, but (perhaps because reality shows themselves are still so popular, the public tends to look askance at anything which seems to make fun of it OR similar genres).
Just some random burblings to get the discussion started.