Kathy Bates says NBC treated 'Harry's Law' like S--.

Kathy Bates is still unhappy with how her NBC treated her show, 'Harry's Law'. It does not surprise me that she said this.

“I think they [NBC] treated us like s–t,” said Bates, when responding to a question about whether or not she had reservations about returning to television. “They kicked us to the curb. I think they disrespected us, I think they disrespected our seven to 11 million viewers every week and I think they’re getting what they deserve.”

Later, Bates clarified that the cancellation of the show in May 2012 left her stunned and hurt. “You know, it was just a real difficult emotional thing,” she said. “Going to work every day…you create a family. For me…it was just delightful for me to go to work every day and to lose that on the whim was hard. I loved the part, I loved the people I worked with and it was astounding to feel that as an older person, you weren’t wanted, your audience wasn’t wanted on television.”

“I think they had a really wonderful show but to me, I’m very excited to be moving on to this [American Horror Story] because it’s a magnificent character and very different from Harry and I’m very thankful to be getting to play it,” Bates added. “Easy come, easy go, I guess.”






Kathy Bates on 'Harry's Law': NBC 'treated us like s--'

Updated On: 8/2/13 at 06:22 PM

Tell it to Brooklyn Bridge, Pushing Daisies, My So Called Life and all the other great shows that were cancelled prematurely.

---

Yeah--I'm not sure the ubiquity of what she's describing makes her experience any less legitimate or any less real to her.

---

Hang on Kathy, when the world realizes there is a hole in their entertainment life, the show will be revived like "It's A Living" was.

---

Kathy, you treat a puppy like a puppy and a lion like a lion so it follows you'd treat that show as sh!t.

And I like her- a lot. But that show? Meh.

The suits @ NBC & other networks are only interested in young viewers. Old viewers can sit on an egg & rotate as far as they are concerned.

---

A couple of huevos bouncing off one's chin ain't bad from time to time. But I do digress.
I would assume that everyone involve in a show loves it and doesn't really have proper prospective on how good or not it is. Of course they are going to be upset if it is cancelled after a brief run.

---

The whole problem was the Demo rating that was non existent, but the whole demo thing in the US is really odd to me. It should go on how many are turning it to watch the show. I think it's appalling that if you are over a certain age in the states you don't count when it comes to TV. Though if networks are so obsessed with that age demo then why make a show like Harry's Law in the first place that is clearly going to appeal to an older audience? It's the same with Blue Bloods though their small demo is enough to keep them alive on Friday nights.

---

Well, you did see Chuck fans getting a big campaign to eat Subway sandwiches to keep it alive, but other than that it's not common, certainly.

And by "big" I mean, they made a small but noticeable-enough wave to get curious media mention.

---

If they'd gone with my suggested title "Harry's Twat?" it would still be on the air.

---

Just to add to what best12bars wrote, I believe the thinking isn't that we who are over 49 don't spend money, but that our buying habits are more or less set in stone.

The thinking is the 18-49 demo is still open to changing what they buy.

There are basic cable shows (a lot of true crime) that do court the older demographic. They seem to have a lot of ads for reverse mortgages.

If you watch different enough TV shows, the commercials you'll see are pretty hilariously different if you pay attention.

Cars, for example: American Idol gets lots of sleek sedans riding through cities at night, and NFL games get pickup trucks trudging through mud and having logs thrown in the back. It'll still be Ford buying ads, but marketing very carefully.

---